Bruzzese 2004.

Methods	Included as process evaluation and outcome evaluation Intervention study design: randomised controlled trial with the child selected as the unit of allocation Setting: children were recruited from 2 inner city public high schools Period: not reported
Participants	Eligible sample frame: 65 students were eligible; 45 were randomised to intervention or control group Randomised: 45 students were randomised: 23 to the intervention group and 22 to the delayed‐treatment control group across the 2 schools Completed (intervention): 100% of children in the intervention group received workshop 1; 91% received workshop 2; 61% of children in the intervention group received workshop 3, as time did not permit a make‐up session Inclusion criteria: students with persistent asthma symptoms, at least 3 days a week or 3 nights a month Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Age of children: students in 9th and 10th grades Ethnicity: not reported Socio‐economic status: not reported Gender: not reported Asthma status: asthmatic students only
Interventions	School type: high school Intervention description: Open Airways for Schools, academic detailing Control description: usual care/nothing Theoretical framework: self‐regulation theory Intervention: students received the ASMA programme, in which students were taught how to manage their asthma to prevent symptoms and improve quality of life. One goal of ASMA is to help students incorporate asthma management strategies into their self‐identity. Continued medical education was also offered to students' medical providers Intensity: intervention was delivered over an 8‐week period, comprising 3 workshops spaced 2 to 3 weeks apart Instructor: intervention was delivered by a trained health educator Parental engagement: not reported Child satisfaction: most students found the sessions helpful; however a third confirmed that they may or may not participate again Timing of intervention in school day: every attempt was made to meet with students during their free time
Outcomes	Extractable outcomes were collected for: none Core processes/outcomes evaluated (child level): attrition, adherence
Notes	Process evaluation category: stand‐alone Breadth and depth: neither broad nor deep Voice of children given prominence: sufficient coverage Funding source: Speakers' fund for public health
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Only detail provided was that students were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details were provided except that students were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Methods used for blinding were not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Methods used for blinding were not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Low levels of post‐test outcomes collected: 14 students who attended group workshop #3 ‐ 64% of all treatment students ‐ completed an evaluation of the programme
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No data from the control group were presented. The procedure followed for control group students is unclear
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline data were not reported, so we are unable to determine if any imbalances existed at baseline
Transparent and clearly stated aims	Low risk	Study aims were clearly stated
Explicit theories underpinning and/or literature review	Low risk	Theory guiding the intervention was provided as self‐regulation theory
Transparent and clearly stated methods and tools	High risk	Tools used for data collection were inferred, as opposed to being stated
Selective reporting	Unclear risk	Outcomes that study authors intended to measure are unclear; therefore we are unable to say whether evidence shows selective reporting
Harmful effects	High risk	No provision was made for harmful effects
Population and sample described well	Unclear risk	Some aspects of the sample were described in sufficient detail; however no information was provided on ethnicity, SES, or asthma severity among participants
Continuous evaluation	High risk	Study authors did not capture the people who dropped out
Evaluation participation equity and sampling	Unclear risk	Not reported by study authors
Design and methods overall approach	Unclear risk	Little information was given about the methods used
Tools and methods of data collection reliable/credible	High risk	Small sample size suggests that different approaches to analysis and collection should have been used
Tools and methods of data analysis reliable/credible	High risk	Small sample size suggests that different approaches to analysis and collection should have been used
Performance bias/neutrality/credibility/conformability	Unclear risk	Not reported by study authors
Reliability of findings and recommendations	Unclear risk	Not reported by study authors
Transferability of findings	Unclear risk	Some of the lessons learnt around time‐tabling were transferable; however study authors did not assess transferability
Overall risk of bias of process evaluation	High risk	Points around sampling and absence of continuous evaluation contribute to high risk of bias