Greene 2002.

Methods	CBA
Participants	1400 children from 64 classrooms (grades 1 to 3) in the US. Number of participants: 735 students in the intervention group and 665 students in the control group.
Interventions	Reporting Phase III of the Think First For Kids curriculum. Only children were the recipients of the intervention, which was carried out by teachers within schools. Intervention: Think First For Kids programme. 6‐week, 6‐subject curriculum was integrated into the usual school curriculum. The units looked at the structure and function of the brain and spinal cord; road traffic safety (e.g. motor vehicle safety); conflict resolution; and water, sports, playground and recreational safety. There were 3 intervention groups (for the 3 grades). Control: no intervention.
Outcomes	Safety knowledge (brain and spinal cord injury, water safety, cycle safety, motor vehicle/pedestrian safety and playground/sports safety) assessed using questions designed to measure the effectiveness of the programme 1 week after the intervention.
Injury mechanisms	Brain and spinal cord injuries: motorcycle injuries; pedestrian injuries; cycle safety; conflict resolution and weapon's safety; water safety; playground, recreation and sports safety.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation to intervention/control (selection bias) (for non‐RCT and CBA studies)	Unclear risk	Not report.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Insufficient information provided about the blinding process. Participants were likely to know that they received the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided about the blinding process.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the missing outcome data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the outcome reporting to determine risk.
Other bias	Unclear risk	May be risk of bias but there was insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias existed.
Risk of bias due to confounding (for non‐RCTs and CBA studies)	Unclear risk	No baseline data provided to enable a comparison of the groups.