Bohnert 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Intervention period: 30 weeks Follow‐up period (post‐intervention): nil Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Reliable outcomes: reported Protection against contamination: NR Unit of allocation: individual Unit of analysis: individual
Participants	N (controls baseline) = 24 N (controls follow‐up) = 37 N (interventions baseline) = 52 N (interventions follow‐up) = 96 Setting (and number by study group): elementary schools (N = 52 intervention girls, N = 24 control girls) Recruitment: brief announcements at 5 urban elementary (public) schools (3rd, 4th and 5th grade girls) Geographic region: underserved, urban, low‐income communities in Chicago, USA Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 100% Mean age: intervention: 9.02 ± 0.93; control: 9.38 ± 1.13 Sex: 100% female
Interventions	To examine the effectiveness of 'Girls in the Game' after‐school programmes (GIG ASPs) in promoting social‐emotional development and reducing BMI and obesogenic behaviours among a group of urban, low‐income, African American and Latina girls. The GIG After‐school programme is a 30‐week curriculum that includes 10 three‐week modules. Each session is led by trained GIG coaches, is approximately 90 min in length. 50% covers physical instruction and energetic activity through traditional and nontraditional sports and fitness activities, and 50% addresses age‐appropriate health education, nutrition education, and leadership and life skills topics. A healthy snack or meal was provided at each session. A small prize was provided to the “girl of the day”. Curriculum is evidence‐based and utilises SAFE (sequenced, active, focused, explicit) practices. Specifically, each lesson follows a structured plan and builds upon previous lessons to achieve their objective (i.e. sequenced). GIG also utilises engaging and interactive methods to help girls achieve skills, and girls are encouraged to come up with solutions (i.e. active). Finally, GIG programme leaders devote a set amount of time each week (e.g. 45 min/session) to teaching these skills (i.e. focused), and girls have a clear understanding (i.e. provided with “topic of the day”) about what they are expected to learn (i.e. explicit). Diet and PA combined intervention vs control
Outcomes	Outcome measures Primary outcome: zBMI, nutrition, PA, body image/weight perception, self‐report social‐emotional development Secondary outcomes: NR Process evaluation: reported (attendance, programme quality, implementation, and engagement)
Implementation‐related factors	Theoretical basis: SCT and Sociocultural theory Resources for intervention implementation: NR Who delivered the intervention: reported PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: child: race/ethnicity; school: SES (low‐income) PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: NR Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: NR Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: NR Economic evaluation: NR
Notes	Funding: this trial was funded by a grant from the Chicago Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children (CLOCC:AU 508485) GIG staff and study personnel collected data on attendance, programme quality, curriculum implementation, and participant engagement from programme girls only. Across all sites, on average, girls who participated in the programme throughout the year attended 73.6% of GIG sessions. Ratings of programme quality were high at all programme sites particularly for safe environment (M = 4.78, SD = 0.23), supportive environment (M = 3.84, SD = 0.24), and interaction (M = 3.93, SD = 0.36) domains, which were all above normative score distributions in validity studies. The 4th domain, engagement, was relatively lower (M = 2.64, SD = 0.28), but still at the higher end of the distribution for Youth Programme Quality Assessment Scales. Implementation data suggest that curriculum was implemented very well across the 5 school sites (M = 1.85, SD = 0.12) and participant engagement was high (M = 1.81, SD = 0.16) on average.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Random numbers table but girls were not assigned to the control group if spaces in the programme were still available (i.e. filling programme slots took priority over balancing sample sizes between GIG and control groups)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	See above
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding of outcome assessors NR but GIG staff were involved in collecting questionnaire data
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High attrition (54% in intervention group and 65% in control)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol/trial registration documents were unavailable.
Other bias	Low risk	No additional threats to validity