Crane 2014.

Methods	Included as process evaluation Intervention study design: study design was quasi‐experimental. Pre‐post follow‐up was provided Unit of allocation: school Process evaluation methods: quantitative: survey/questionnaire
Participants	Country: USA Age of children: 8 to 12 years old Child characteristics (BME/SES): not reported Asthma status: asthmatic only Intervention recipients: 45 children; 49% male
Interventions	School type: 1 Tulsa‐area elementary school Intervention description: modification of Open Airways for Schools (OAS). Children received 10 sessions lasting 20 minutes over a lunch period. Six education topics from the original OAS programme were taught, and students received handouts from the original programme Control description: Open Airways for Schools (OAS) (standard) Theoretical framework: based on Piaget's educational theory
Outcomes	Core processes evaluated (child level): attrition, dosage
Notes	Process evaluation category: stand‐alone Breadth and depth: depth ‐ not breadth Voice of children given prominence: featured but not sufficiently Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Other bias	Unclear risk	N/A
Transparent and clearly stated aims	Low risk	Study aims were clearly stated
Explicit theories underpinning and/or literature review	Low risk	Based on the educational theory of Jean Piaget
Transparent and clearly stated methods and tools	Low risk	Methods and tools were well described
Selective reporting	Low risk	What was purported to be measured was included in the report
Harmful effects	Unclear risk	Harmful effects were discussed, for example, time‐tabling issues and conflicts. However, harmful effects were not collected by structured means
Population and sample described well	Unclear risk	Information around asthma burden and ethnicity was not collected
Continuous evaluation	Unclear risk	Only 1 drop out was reported; however relevant data were not collected
Evaluation participation equity and sampling	Unclear risk	Not all stakeholders were included in the evaluation
Design and methods overall approach	Unclear risk	This was reported, but not a lot of information was provided
Tools and methods of data collection reliable/credible	Low risk	All data collection methods and tools were reliable
Tools and methods of data analysis reliable/credible	Low risk	Data analysis methods were credible for the data
Performance bias/neutrality/credibility/conformability	Unclear risk	Unclear how confidentiality was maintained
Reliability of findings and recommendations	Low risk	Findings of the process evaluation were sufficiently supported by the data
Transferability of findings	High risk	Small sample size makes it difficult for findings to be transferable
Overall risk of bias of process evaluation	Unclear risk	The narrow confines of the focus probably account for medium risk when viewed as a 'process evaluation'