Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 28;2019(1):CD011651. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011651.pub2

Mujuru 2011.

Methods Included as process evaluation
Intervention study design: quasi‐experimental design, pre‐post follow‐up, no control
Unit of allocation: N/A
Process evaluation methods: descriptive/bivariate analysis methods
Participants Country: USA
Age of children: 18 students in grades 3 to 5
Child characteristics (BME/SES): 39% of students were in receipt of Medicaid. Ethnicity data were not reported
Asthma status: asthmatic only
Intervention recipients: children and parents
Interventions School type: 1 elementary school
Intervention description: study used the OAS programme to provide educational workshops in schools
Control description: N/A
Theoretical framework: not reported
Outcomes Core processes evaluated (child level): attrition
Notes Process evaluation category: integrated
Breadth and depth: breadth and depth
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 Unclear risk A named theory is not present, but supporting literature was presented
Transparent and clearly stated methods and tools Low risk Data collection tools were reasonably well described
Selective reporting Low risk Negative aspects of the intervention were reported
Harmful effects Low risk Low parental engagement and compliance were reported
Population and sample described well Unclear risk Some expected fields, for example, ethnicity, were not reported
Continuous evaluation Low risk Pre‐post assessment was conducted; however post follow‐up engagement was low
Evaluation participation equity and sampling Low risk Parents were involved, but little information was received from teachers or instructors
Design and methods overall approach Low risk The overall design and methods were well described and suitable for the study
Tools and methods of data collection reliable/credible Low risk Tools used for data collection were reported fully
Tools and methods of data analysis reliable/credible Unclear risk The validity of the parental survey is unclear. This survey contained a 32‐item questionnaire designed by investigators as based on a review of published medical literature
Performance bias/neutrality/credibility/conformability Unclear risk Some aspects were covered, but not all aspects were reported on
Reliability of findings and recommendations Unclear risk Some process outcomes might be generalisable, but study authors themselves suggest that the "sample size was too small to generalise the results to a larger population"
Transferability of findings Unclear risk Some process outcomes might be generalisable, but study authors themselves suggest that the "sample size was too small to generalise the results to a larger population"
Overall risk of bias of process evaluation Low risk No factors were considered high risk