Cox 2010.

Methods	Randomised trial of a Web‐based psychoeducation intervention vs no treatment
Participants	Included (n = 85) Children between 7 and 16 years of age recruited from paediatric surgical wards over 12 months, hospitalised overnight, who had acquired an accidental or unintentional injury including mild traumatic brain injury, with family Internet access. Mean age: 10.90 years. Female: 26. Type of injury: 41 falls, 13 sports, 12 MVA, 6 burns, 13 other. Mean injury severity score, 7 Excluded Parents' or child’s English was inadequate for completion of questionnaires, child had acquired a moderate to severe head injury, injury was the result of suspected intentional trauma Setting Children’s hospital in Queensland, Australia, 2007
Interventions	Web‐based intervention (n = 44) Consisted of a booklet for parents containing information regarding common child reactions, their likely time course and how parents can best assist their child’s emotional recovery, as well as a Website for children. Both aimed to normalise and relieve trauma reactions and incorporated practical tools based on cognitive‐behavioural and resiliency strategies including relaxation, coping skills, problem solving, identification of strengths and reflections on trauma Control group (n = 41) Assessed at each interval
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children‐A (TSCC‐A; 44‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Scale: Impact of Events Scale‐Revised (IES‐R; 22‐item): intrusion, avoidance and hyperarousal Rater: parent Depression Scale: TSCC‐A: depression Rater: child/adolescent Anxiety Scale: TSCC‐A: anxiety Rater: child/adolescent When Post intervention (4 to 6 weeks) and at 6 months post injury
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computerised random number generator in Microsoft Excel
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	High risk	Participants probably were aware of whether they had been allocated to treatment or no treatment groups
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcome assessments could not be blinded, as all were self reported or parent reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Analysis was based on last observation carried forward, but loss to follow‐up was 34% post therapy and 31% at 6 months
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was apparent