Weber‐Gasparoni 2013

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Conducted in: USA Unit of randomisation: mother‐child dyad Unit of analysis: individual Setting: home Funded by: "The study was funded by the NIDCR and the University of Iowa College of Dentistry Research Seed Grant" Duration of the study: 6 months
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Mothers were required to be ≥ 18 years old, with children between 12 and 49 months of age Exclusion criteria: not reported Age at baseline: 12 to 49 months (1 to 4 years) N (controls baseline): 132 N (controls follow‐up): 78 N (controls follow‐up): 6‐month: 86 N (interventions baseline): 283 N (interventions follow‐up): 155 N (interventions follow‐up): 6‐month: 181 Recruitment: Mother‐child dyads were recruited from 2 Women, Infants and Children (WIC16) Supplemental Food Programmes Gender: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: 15‐minute oral health education delivered through a video message informed by the self‐determination theory (SDT17) that covered the following issues: process of tooth decay, oral hygiene practices, dietary habits that affect caries susceptibility and checking the child’s teeth for early signs of caries Control: paper brochure on oral health education Duration of intervention: 15 minutes
Outcomes	Caries status
Implementation related factors	Theoretical basis: self determination theory Resources for implementation: not reported Who delivered the intervention: unclear PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: not reported PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: not reported Outcomes related to harms/unintended effects: not reported Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: not reported Economic evaluation: not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Mother‐child dyads were randomly assigned, via a randomisation table, to 1 of 2 groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Published report presents all expected outcomes of interest to the review
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All children were examined by the study principal investigator, who was blinded to group assignment, both at baseline and at 6‐month follow‐up
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear