| Study |
Type of study |
Approach |
Process evaluation elements |
| Al‐Sheyab 2012a |
Feasibility study |
Qualitative |
Thematic analyses of student perceptions |
| Berg 2004 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Thematic analyses of student perceptions |
| Bignall 2015 |
Feasibility study |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Thematic analyses of student perceptions |
| Brasler 2006 |
Feasibility/case study of implementation |
Quantitative data and trialist reports |
Implementation challenges and facilitators identified |
| Bruzzese 2004 |
Feasibility study |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Section evaluating intervention reach, dosage, and student satisfaction |
| Bruzzese 2011 |
Outcome evaluation with section on process evaluation |
Quantitative |
Section evaluating intervention reach (dosage) |
| Bruzzese 2008 |
Feasibility study |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Stand‐alone section on process evaluation results assessing implementation and student perceptions |
| Carpenter 2016 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Thematic analyses of student perceptions |
| Cicutto 2013 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided a description of wider school support through policy changes (process of interest included in the logic model) |
| Crane 2014 |
Feasibility study |
Quantitative |
Study was included as it represented an implementation study (through focus on the impact of changing dosage schedule) |
| Dore‐Stites 2007 |
Feasibility study |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on student satisfaction |
| Engelke 2013 |
Feasibility study |
Quantitative |
Detailed process/implementation information was provided |
| Gerald 2006 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided a description of implementation challenges |
| Henry 2004 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided a description of wider school support through policy changes (process of interest in the logic model) and assessment of sustainability |
| Horner 2015 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
Included detailed information on attrition and cost‐effectiveness |
| Howell 2005 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on student satisfaction |
| Jackson 2006 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on student satisfaction |
| Joseph 2010 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided detailed information on non‐adherence |
| Joseph 2013 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
Included detailed studies of non‐adherence and relationship with student characteristics |
| Kintner 2012 |
Feasibility study |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on student satisfaction |
| Kouba 2012 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided detailed information on dosage (and dose‐response) |
| Langenfeld 2010 |
Implementation study |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided detailed information on dosage (and dose‐response) |
| Lee 2011 |
Implementation study |
Qualitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided detailed information on instructor experiences |
| Levy 2006 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on parental adherence to intervention protocol |
| Magzamen 2008 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on attrition |
| McCann 2006 |
Outcome evaluation with process evaluation information |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on teacher adherence/school level commitment |
| Mickel 2016 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Qualitative and quantitative |
Thematic analyses of student perceptions |
| Mujuru 2011 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided a description of parental satisfaction |
| Pike 2011 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on teacher adherence/school level commitment |
| Richmond 2011 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
(Mainly) Quantitative |
Included detailed information on adherence and awareness |
| Spencer 2000 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on instructor satisfaction and school level commitment |
| Splett 2006 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, provided information on adherence and school level commitment |
| Terpstra 2012 |
Outcome and process evaluation |
Quantitative |
In addition to information on other processes of interest, represented an implementation study by including a focus on the impact of parental involvement/increasing parental awareness |
