Beech 2003.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Intervention period: 12 weeks Follow‐up period (post‐intervention): nil Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Reliable outcomes: reported Protection against contamination: NR Unit of allocation: child Unit of analysis: child
Participants	Pre‐adolescent African‐American girls N (controls baseline) 18 N (controls follow‐up) = 18 N (interventions baseline) = child programme 21 + 21 = 42 N (interventions follow‐up) =parent programme 21 + 21 = 42 Setting: unclear if at houses or at university centres Recruitment: girls and their families were recruited through public service announcements on several local African‐American radio stations, participation of GEMS investigators in live radio talk shows, and flyers distributed at local elementary schools. Geographic region: Memphis, USA Percentage of eligible population enrolled: Mean age overall: 8.9 (0.8); range 8‐10 years; intervention age: child‐targeted group 8.7 (0.8); parent‐targeted group 9.1 (0.7); control: 8.9 (0.8) Sex: girls only Ethnicity: African‐American only
Interventions	Intervention: the active interventions involved highly interactive weekly group sessions for 12 weeks with either girls (child‐targeted programme) or parents/caregivers (parent‐targeted programme). Content focused on knowledge and behaviour‐change skills to promote healthy eating and increased PA. Control: the comparison intervention focused on global self‐esteem. The participants attended 3 monthly, 90‐min sessions over the 12‐week pilot study
Outcomes	BMI Waist circumference Physical maturation DEXA for % body fat Blood samples for insulin PA: accelerometer CSA modified SAPAC GEMS Activity Questionnaire (GAQ) computerised Dietary intake measured by two 24‐h recalls using NDS‐R Psychological variables: body image using modified (Stunkard 1983) body silhouettes weight control behaviours using McKnight Risk Factor Survey parental food preparation practices Self‐Perception Profile for Children Healthy Growth Study for physical activity expectations a self‐efficacy measure Process evaluation: reported
Implementation‐related factors
Notes	Funding: NR
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Authors refer to randomisation but do not specify a procedure.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	NR
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	NR Quote: "interview sessions were held in conjunction with the post‐test assessment sessions and were conducted by a study investigator who was not involved in the direct delivery of the interventions."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data Quote: "Complete data were collected at follow up for 100% of the study population"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol/trial registration document were unavailable
Other bias	Low risk	No further bias identified