Study	Reason for exclusion
Bachanas 2012	Study focus: HIV prevention
Barnet 2007	The experimental intervention (home visiting) focused on parenting and adolescent curricula. For contraception, the home‐visitors "sought to connect adolescents with primary care." Hence, the theoretical basis did not apply to the contraceptive component.
Barth 1992	Some classes were assigned randomly to study groups, while others were assigned based on group size.
Boekeloo 1999	Intervention focused on STI and HIV prevention, emphasized condom use for protection and abstinence as the safest behavior.
Brown 2011	Investigator communicated that study was not randomized. Materials for each condition were distributed ad hoc within each classroom or data collection setting.
Carneiro 2011	No explicit behavioral theory or model
Chung‐Park 2008	Random assignment by group; analysis did not appear to account for clustering effects.
Cowan 2010	Interim survey showed nearly half the cohort migrated out of area. Investigators and data and safety monitoring board changed design to cross‐sectional survey.
DiClemente 2004	Study focus: HIV prevention among female adolescents; no mention of contraception.
DiIorio 2006	Study focus: HIV prevention
Eisen 1990	Random assignment by group; analysis did not appear to account for clustering effects.
Ferrer 2011	Study focus: sexual risk reduction not contraception
Gallegos 2008	Did not have any of the primary outcomes in this review. Study focused on intentions to use condoms and contraceptives, not behavior.
Garbers 2012	Pre‐post design for feasibility study (no comparison group); nested within RCT
Hall 2014	No explicit behavioral theory or model underlying intervention
Hanna 1993	Primary outcome of contraceptive adherence combined pill‐taking and appointment‐keeping.
Hoffman 2003	Study focus: HIV and STI prevention
Ickovics 2016	No mention of contraception in intervention, nor in background articles. Condom use apparently focused on prevention of STI.
Ingersoll 2013	No contraceptive counseling intervention, unlike Ceperich 2011.
Ito 2008	Did not have any of the primary outcomes in this review.
James 2006	No explicit behavioral theory or model
Jemmott 2005	Study focus: HIV and STI risk reduction
Jemmott 2007	Study focus: HIV and STI risk reduction
Jewkes 2008	Focused on preventing HIV infections.
Kalichman 1999	Study focus: HIV prevention via condom use
Kamalikhah 2015	Not RCT according to investigator's communication: 2 health centers identified that served women of similar sociocultural characteristics; investigators reportedly chose 1 as control and the other as intervention
Kiene 2006	Study focus: HIV/AIDS risk reduction via condom use
Kiene 2013	Not RCT; pre‐post assessment of treatment group
Kirby 1997	Classrooms were assigned to study group; analysis did not appear to account for clustering effects.
Kraft 2007	No relevant outcome measure. Report notes that effective contraceptive use did not differ significantly between the study groups; data were not presented.
Langston 2010	No explicit behavioral theory or model
Lederman 2003	No behavioral data were reported, so no primary outcomes for this review were available. Later reports included attitudes and intentions.
Lee 2007	Coin flip determined which rooms were assigned to program first. Even‐numbered rooms were the experimental group and odd‐numbered were the control group. Cluster assignment (by room) not addressed in the analysis.
Lee 2011	Even‐numbered rooms were control group (routine services). Odd‐numbered rooms were experimental; divided into 2 groups (1 to 11; 13 to 23); coin flip determined which would receive the special intervention first (versus pamphlet). Rooms with double occupancy were assigned as a unit. Cluster assignment (by room) not addressed in the analysis.
Legardy 2005	No explicit behavioral theory or model; some constructs were mentioned.
Melnick 2008	Did not have any of the primary outcomes in this review. No explicit behavioral theory or model that might have guided the development of the intervention. Both groups had the same counseling; the 'intensive' intervention also included 3‐month supply of contraceptives.
Moberg 1998	Assignment was not completely random. Schools were randomized to either control or treatment, but the latter had a choice of 2 treatments. Curriculum objectives included not engaging in sex.
Morrison‐Beedy 2005	Study focus: HIV risk reduction
Morrison‐Beedy 2013	Intervention did not specifically address pregnancy prevention or contraception; focus on HIV risk reduction
Peragallo 2005	Study focus: HIV prevention
Peskin 2015	'It's Your Game (IYG)‐Tech': computer‐based, middle school sexual health education program. Report does not mention contraceptive use as an outcome; condom use assessed but no outcome data provided.
Roberto 2007	Random assignment by group; only 2 schools were randomized so the analysis could not be adjusted for clustering effects.
Ross 2007	No mention of contraception in intervention, including in background article; condom use apparently focused on prevention of STI. Cross‐sectional survey (several years later) included use of modern contraception as outcome.
Roye 2007	Study focus: brief intervention to prevent HIV via condom use (in addition to current use of hormonal contraceptives)
Sarayloo 2015	Not RCT; treatment and control selected from separate health centers to avoid contamination
Shain 1999	Study focus: preventing STI among minority women
Sieving 2012	Pilot study to refine intervention protocols and determine preliminary efficacy. Outcome analysis included participants randomized (phase 1) and nonrandomized (phase 2).
Stanton 1996	Study focus: AIDS prevention
Stanton 2005	Trial had 4 arms (3 program versions and 1 control). Investigators excluded the 1 group (with the interactive televised version) from the analysis. A secondary report from 2006 grouped the 3 intervention arms and compared them to the control. Adjustment for cluster effects was not apparent in the latter report.
Stephenson 2004	No explicit behavioral theory or model
Thato 2008	Curriculum emphasized abstinence (Thai values and culture toward premarital sex and maintaining virginity until marriage). Report did not include any of the primary outcomes for this review.
Tortolero 2008	The investigator communicated that there was no intervention effect and they never published an outcome paper.
Villarruel 2006	Study focus: HIV prevention for Latino youth
Vogt 2012	No relevant outcome
Weeks 1997	Random assignment by group; analysis did not appear to account for cluster effects.
Winter 1993	No explicit behavioral theory or model. Did not have any of the primary outcomes in this review. 'Condom acceptance' was defined by the number of condoms taken at the end of the session rather than reported use.
Zimmerman 2008	Curriculum emphasized abstinence.