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 |