Henry 2004.

Methods	Included as outcome evaluation and process evaluation Study design: clustered parallel‐group design Setting: secondary schools in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Period: baseline data were collected between February and March 1993. Follow‐up data were collected between August and October 1993. Follow‐up questionnaires were sent to the heads of participating schools in 1999 Process evaluation methods: descriptive/bivariate
Participants	Eligible sample frame: 33 schools were eligible for participation, with a total of 4475 year 8 students, 23% of whom had current asthma. In total, 76.7% of all eligible students and 82.7% of students recruited into th initial phase contributed to data analysis Randomised: not reported Completed (intervention): not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Age of children: year 8 students were eligible; adolescents aged 13 to 14 years were targeted Ethnicity: numbers were not reported; however schools included a predominantly Caucasian population Socio‐economic status: not reported. Gender: males represented 52.4% of intervention students with matched data and 52.9% of control adolescents Asthma status: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: intervention schools received a 3‐lesson package about asthma designed to be taught within the Personal Development/Health/Physical Education (PD/ H/PE) strand of the school curriculum. Each school was invited to send a delegate to learn the curriculum and was provided with the Living With Asthma teaching kit Control: usual care Intensity: 3 lessons; however the duration of these lessons was not reported Instructor: in some schools, teachers who attended the training seminar delivered the lessons; in other schools, teachers trained their colleagues Theoretical framework: not reported Parental engagement: not reported Child satisfaction: not reported Timing of intervention in school day: taught within the Personal Development/Health/Physical Education strand of the school curriculum
Outcomes	Core processes evaluated (child level): adherence (long‐term) Extractable outcomes were collected for: Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL)
Notes	Process evaluation category: integrated 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)	High risk	Method of stratification is unclear: schools were randomised to control or intervention, with an attempt to obtain similar demographic mixes in the 2 groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not addressed by study authors
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not addressed by study authors
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not addressed by study authors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Attrition data for asthmatic children were not provided in full
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All data were reported by study authors
Other bias	Unclear risk	Missingness ‐ unclear risk ‐ missing data are apparent with no explanation provided Baseline imbalance ‐ unclear risk ‐ this was not addressed by study authors Risk of contamination ‐ low ‐ risk of contamination was low due to the study design
Transparent and clearly stated aims	Low risk	Study aims were clearly stated
Explicit theories underpinning and/or literature review	High risk	No theoretical framework and very little supporting literature were provided
Transparent and clearly stated methods and tools	Low risk	Study aims were clearly stated
Selective reporting	Unclear risk	Medium bias ‐ problems with linking surveys were experienced (pre‐post intervention)
Harmful effects	Unclear risk	How this was addressed is unclear. In particular, this might not have been beneficial for many children
Population and sample described well	High risk	Level of baseline imbalance was not reported
Continuous evaluation	Unclear risk	Pre‐post assessment data were used for the majority, but an element of continuous evaluation was included in the school policy analysis
Evaluation participation equity and sampling	Unclear risk	Moderate evidence shows that the voice of children was reflected adequately
Design and methods overall approach	Low risk	Design and methods were appropriate for this study
Tools and methods of data collection reliable/credible	Low risk	Data collection tools used were credible and reliable
Tools and methods of data analysis reliable/credible	Low risk	Analysis of quantitative data was reliable
Performance bias/neutrality/credibility/conformability	Unclear risk	No evidence shows how confidentiality was maintained
Reliability of findings and recommendations	Unclear risk	Level of baseline imbalance is unclear
Transferability of findings	Unclear risk	Transferability was not assessed by study authors
Overall risk of bias of process evaluation	Unclear risk	Some aspects of study design and study characteristics were not explained fully