Sanchez 2007.

Methods	Study name: Reconnecting Youth Study design: individual‐level RCT Intervention arm(s): Reconnecting Youth (RY) ‐ prevention programme for at‐risk high school youth Comparator arm(s): control (no RY class) Sample size calculation performed: N/S Subgroups prespecified: yes; by site Subgroup analyses: by site; those who attended > 50% of classes (on treatment approach) Start date: 2002 Duration of follow‐up: 1 year after programme completion Number of follow‐ups: end of first semester, 6 months post programme, 12 months post programme Follow‐up time points: post intervention, 6 months ICC (if reported): N/A
Participants	Number of schools randomised: N/A Number of participants randomised (total and by arm): 695 experimental, 675 control Age (range or mean (SD)) or grade at the start: mean 14.99 for treatment group, 15.21 for control group Gender: 49% male Ethnicity: site A: 87% Hispanic, 9% black, 4% white, 4% American Indian or other race; site B: 40% Asian/Pacific Islander, 21% Hispanic, 15% black, 10% white, 12% American Indian or other race SES: site A: 90% qualified for the federal free or reduced‐price lunch programme; site B: 61% of students qualified for free or reduced‐price lunch Inclusion criteria: criteria for high‐risk status included being in the top 25% for truancy and the bottom 50% for GPA, or being referred for participation by a school teacher or counsellor. Exclusion criteria: N/S
Interventions	Randomisation before or after baseline survey: after Duration of the intervention (excluding follow‐up): autumn 2002 to autumn 2004 Description of the intervention: Reconnecting Youth (RY) is a 1‐semester class that aims to improve academic achievement, reduce or prevent drug use, and improve mood management (depression, anger, anxiety). A 5‐unit written curriculum with 55 core and 24 booster lessons is included. The programme is implemented in a small group of 10 to 12 students. The 2 main components are skills training and group development, including social support from teacher and peers. The first unit comprises 10 lessons introducing students to the model, followed by units focused on self‐monitoring, self‐esteem, decision‐making, personal control, and decision‐making. Students learn to self‐monitor their attendance, moods, and drug use on a daily basis, and to develop achievable goals based on these data. In all, 50% to 60% of each class session is allocated to skills building; 20% to monitoring and reporting back on homework; and 20% to a structured discussion/feedback process for student issues, problems, and celebrations. Brief description of the theoretical model: guided by strain, social learning and control theories Description of the comparator: high‐risk students not assigned to take the RY class
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: educational outcomes, substance use, mental health (anger, depression, anxiety), school connectedness, peer bonding Secondary outcomes: N/S
Setting	Country: USA; State: Pacific Coast (Site B) and South West (Site A) Setting: secondary school Focus: targeted to persons experimenting with drugs or other risk‐related behaviours
Process measures	Process data reported: yes Method (qualitative or quantitative): quantitative Description: teacher logs, attendance records, classroom observations, and student questionnaires were completed. Average attendance was 79% (SD 22.43), with a range of 4% to 100%. The mean percentage of total lessons taught was 74% (SD 0.11, range 56% to 92%). Teachers taught 90% of core lessons on average, but 38% of booster lessons (range 4% to 83%). The mean percentage of time spent on life skills building was 56%, just exceeding the 50% mark denoting adequate adherence to this programme component. Mean scores on group development and life skills building were 2.43 and 2.49, respectively, out of a total of 5, indicating that implementation quality was between being 'below expectations' and 'meeting the study protocol'. Teacher help and peer help scores were 17.07 (SD 1.03) and 15.70 (SD 1.86), respectively, out of 20, suggesting relatively high levels of student satisfaction.
Statistics	Sample size: response rate not stated; 1370 randomised Unit of randomisation: individual Unit of analysis: individual Method to promote equivalence between groups: N/S Statistical models: ANCOVA models using general linear models, accounting for clustering Baseline differences adjustment: yes Repeated measures methods in analysis: N/S
Notes	Equity: data provided at baseline, as outlined above Funding: National Institute on Drug Abuse Randomisation method: N/S Clustering accounted for in sample size calculation (if relevant): N/A Cluster randomisation methods to account for clustering in analysis: yes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Programme unblinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Self‐reported outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition rates in each group; study authors state that attrition rates by group were not significant (P >. 05) at either follow‐up. No differences were found in attrition by site.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Study authors state that 25 outcome and mediator variables were examined; not clear if all are presented. Some inconsistency in presentation of outcome data at both follow‐ups
Other bias	Unclear risk	Possibility of contamination by students in the same school