Bruzzese 2011.

Methods	Included as outcome evaluation Intervention study design: randomised controlled trial parallel group Setting: conducted at 5 participating high schools in New York, USA Period: study enrolment took place over 4 consecutive school years from 2001 to 2004
Participants	Eligible sample frame: 261 pupils found to be eligible Randomised: 345 students randomised: 175 to intervention group and 170 to control group Completed (intervention): 139 (79.4%) in the intervention group completed follow‐up, as did 142 (83.5%) in the control group Inclusion criteria: 9th and 10th graders with moderate to severe persistent asthma who were taking medication prescribed by a medical provider in the last 12 months Exclusion criteria: none stated Baseline characteristics Age of children: mean age, 15.10 years Ethnicity: 45.5% Hispanic/Latino/a or Hispanic American; 37.7% African American/African or Caribbean American/Caribbean; 11.6% mixed ethnicity; 5.2% other ethnicity Socio‐economic status: not reported Gender: 29.6% male; 70.4% female Asthma status: 68.70% moderate persistent asthma, 31.30% severe persistent asthma. No information on SES
Interventions	Intervention: ASMA consisted of 2 components: (I) an 8‐week intensive programme for students, and (ii) academic detailing for adolescents’ medical providers. Student intervention consisted of three 45‐ to 60‐minute group sessions, and individual tailored coaching sessions held at least once per week for 5 weeks. Sessions were delivered by trained health educators during the school day. Students were taught asthma management skills and ways to cope with asthma, and were encouraged to see their medical provider for clinical evaluation and treatment (see Bruzzese 2004 for a full outline of ASMA content) Control: wait‐list control (usual care) Intensity: three 45‐ to 60‐minute group sessions for children over 8 weeks and individual tailored coaching sessions once a week for 5 weeks Instructor: health educators Theoretical framework: ASMA described as grounded in social cognitive theory Parental engagement: not reported Child satisfaction: not reported Timing: unclear but at some point during the school day
Outcomes	Extractable outcomes were collected for: Exacerbations leading to hospital admission Asthma symptoms leading to emergency hospital visits Absence from school Days of restricted activity Unplanned GP or hospital visit due to asthma Experience of daytime and night‐time symptoms Corticosteroid dosage Withdrawal
Notes	Funding source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NYC Speakers' Fund
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Study authors reported: "Within each stratum, we randomised students to control or intervention using computerized randomisation lists generated in advance by the data manager who concealed them until randomisation"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation lists were generated in advance by the data manager, who concealed them until randomisation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Interviewers were blind to group assignment. Whether participants were blinded is unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Interviewers were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No differences were noted between the 2 groups ‐ incomplete data were unlikely to affect outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported
Other bias	Low risk	Missingness ‐ low risk ‐ appears that more participants who did not drop out submitted their data Baseline imbalance ‐ low risk ‐ intervention and control groups were relatively evenly matched in characteristics Risk of contamination ‐ low ‐ informal interviews with control participants regarding their contact with other students in the programme suggest that contamination did not occur
Transparent and clearly stated aims	Unclear risk	N/A
Explicit theories underpinning and/or literature review	Unclear risk	N/A
Transparent and clearly stated methods and tools	Unclear risk	N/A
Selective reporting	Unclear risk	N/A
Harmful effects	Unclear risk	N/A
Population and sample described well	Unclear risk	N/A
Continuous evaluation	Unclear risk	N/A
Evaluation participation equity and sampling	Unclear risk	N/A
Design and methods overall approach	Unclear risk	N/A
Tools and methods of data collection reliable/credible	Unclear risk	N/A
Tools and methods of data analysis reliable/credible	Unclear risk	N/A
Performance bias/neutrality/credibility/conformability	Unclear risk	N/A
Reliability of findings and recommendations	Unclear risk	N/A
Transferability of findings	Unclear risk	N/A
Overall risk of bias of process evaluation	Unclear risk	N/A