Sutton 1992.

Methods	Design: Quasi‐randomised controlled trial Unit of randomisation: Individual family Follow‐up: 12 to 18 months Study dates: 1984
Participants	Participants: Parents (gender not reported) of difficult preschool children Mean age of parents: Not reported Mean age of child: 2.8 (range 1 to 4.3; SD: NR) years; 25 boys and 5 girls; Mean, SD, range for intervention and control: NR Ethnicity: All children, except for 1, was White, and all parents except for 1 father was White Number randomised: 37 (allocation numbers not reported) Country & setting: UK; multi‐site; recruited from community settings; group‐based parenting training likely took place in treatment centre, though not reported Eligibility criteria: Not specified
Interventions	Four conditions: Group‐based parent training (with booklets from researcher); home visit parent training; telephone consultation parent training; wait‐list control Duration of intervention: 8 (1 to 2 hour) sessions over 8 weeks + boosters 2 weeks and 3 months later Therapist training: Researcher
Outcomes	Emotional and behavioural problems: Child Behaviour Questionnaire, as reported by parent Externalising problems subscale ‐ hyperactivity/inattention: Home Situations Questionnaire, as reported by parent Timing of outcomes: Outcomes reported for postintervention. Follow‐up data were only reported for intervention group and not entered in the review Secondary outcomes/adverse events: No other outcomes relevant to this review specified
Notes	Level of prevention: Secondary or tertiary Funding: No information provided
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	The study investigators reported that participants were sequentially (not randomly) assigned to their intervention group, and that 3 applications were allocated "out of order" due to "difficulty of access or similar reasons"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Participants were aware of their group allocation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants: It would not have been possible to fully blind participants in this type of study (there is an obvious difference between receiving group training, home visits or telephone consulting and being assigned to a waiting list). No indication of any specific additional measures taken to reduce the risk of bias that might result from differential behaviours by participants were found Personnel: The design of the study meant that personnel delivering the intervention were aware which groups had been assigned to the different study conditions
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Independent observer reported outcomes	Low risk	There were no independent observer‐rated outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Parent reported outcomes	High risk	Outcome assessments by parents were not blinded as parents were aware of the intervention condition
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study investigators reported that 37 participants were assigned to the 4 intervention arms. 2 participants in the parent training group and 5 participants in the wait‐list group dropped out of the study; reasons for dropout were not provided. Participants placed on the waiting list were subsequently allocated to home, or telephone intervention groups and their outcome data were analysed for both intervention condition and wait‐list condition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Endpoint data for wait list condition were not supplied for negative child behaviours
Other bias	High risk	The study investigators did not report numbers of participants allocated to each intervention arm