Dewar 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study name: The nutrition and enjoyable activity for teen girls study (NEAT Girls) Study design: cluster‐RCT Intervention period: 12 months Follow‐up period (post‐intervention): 12 months Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Reliable outcomes: reported Protection against contamination: NR Unit of allocation: school Unit of analysis: individual accounting for clustering
Participants	N (control baseline) = 179 N (control follow‐up) = 97 N (intervention baseline) = 178 N (intervention follow‐up) = 77 Setting (and number by study group): 12 secondary schools in low‐income communities (178 girls in 6 intervention schools and 179 girls in 6 control schools) Recruitment: NR in this paper Geographic region: New South Wales, Australia Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 67% schools Mean age: intervention: 13.20 ± 0.45; control: 13.15 ± 0.44 Sex: intervention + control: 100% female.
Interventions	To evaluate the 24‐month impact of the programme on body composition and health behaviours NEAT Girls combined a range of strategies to promote lifestyle (e.g. walking to school) and lifetime PA (e.g. RT), improve dietary intake, and reduce sedentary behaviours Intervention components included enhanced school sport sessions, lunchtime PA sessions, nutrition workshops, interactive educational seminars, pedometers for self‐monitoring, student handbooks, parent newsletters, and text messages to reinforce and encourage targeted health behaviours. Control group was provided with equipment packs and a condensed version of the intervention following the completion of 24‐month assessments. Diet and PA combination intervention vs control
Outcomes	Outcome measures Primary outcome: BMI Secondary outcomes: zBMI; % body fat (bioelectrical impedance analysis); PA (accelerometers); dietary intake; and recreational screen‐time (self‐report), self‐esteem Process evaluation: reported (attendance, fidelity)
Implementation‐related factors	Theoretical basis: SCT Resources for intervention implementation: reported Who delivered the intervention: NR PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: child: race/ethnicity, gender, SES 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	ACTRN1261000033004 Funding: this research project is funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP1092646). This sponsor had no involvement in the design or implementation of this study, in analyses of data, or in the drafting of this paper. Process: a total of 148 girls received the intervention (83.1%). Students’ mean (SD) attendance at school sport sessions was 60.6% (26.0%). On average, girls attended 65.0% (25.1%) of the nutrition workshops, 24.6% (28.1%) of the optional lunch‐time sessions, and completed 8.8% (25.7%) of the home PA and nutrition challenges. Intervention delivery fidelity was found to be 74.0%. All 4 of the parental newsletters were sent to valid addresses for 74.5% of girls in the intervention group. A total of 58 text messages were sent to 91% of girls in the intervention group. Overall, girls were satisfied with the programme (mean (SD), 3.52 (1.24); rating scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The enhanced school sport sessions (41.7%) and the nutrition workshops (38.7%) were the 2 intervention components enjoyed most by girls. Resources: the intervention was focused on promoting lifetime PAs, reducing sedentary behaviours, and encouraging low‐cost healthy eating, and it was delivered during 4 school terms (i.e. 12 months) at no additional financial cost to the school or students. All intervention schools were provided with a standard equipment pack (value = USD 1300), which consisted of a range of equipment (e.g. elastic tubing RT devices, fitness balls, and yoga and Pilates resources) designed to support the promotion of lifetime PAs.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	An independent researcher randomised each pair of schools to either the NEAT Girls intervention or control groups. 12 schools were matched (ie, 6 pairs of schools) based on their geographic location, size, and demographics.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Data collection was conducted by trained research assistants blinded to group allocation at baseline only
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	114 (64.0%) and 123 (68.7%) girls were retained in the intervention and control groups; because of participant attrition, the analyses were underpowered to detect small changes in BMI
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol accessed. All outcomes specified in protocol were reported in results.
Other bias	Low risk	Protocol seen; all outcomes specified in methods were reported in results
Other bias‐ timing of recruitment of clusters	Low risk	Baseline assessments were carried out before randomisation during May/June 2010