Schroeder 2002.

Methods	Study date: 2002. Study design: Cluster‐CBA. Was RCT, but added 41 children
Participants	SES or context: Low‐ and middle‐income country: Vietnam. 12 rural communes Nutritional status: Between ‐2 and ‐3 SD on WAZ; some nearer to normal Age: 5 months ‐ 30 months on entry Sex: Both Number: 238 at entry. Experimental = 119, control = 119. At month 6, experimental = 114, control = 118
Interventions	Intervention: Feeding + nutrition education on positive deviant practices (behaviours used by families whose children grow well despite economic poverty). All children in both groups de‐wormed. Breastfeeding in addition to positive deviant local foods. Common local sources of protein, tofu, fish oil, etc. Caregivers prepared foods at health centres. Sounds like they prepared it in rotation Energy: 300 kcal Intensity: ONLY 12 days a month, but all day. 1 full meal Duration: 12 months. Data in meta‐analysis is from 6‐month follow‐up % DRI for energy: Not enough information % DRI for protein: Not enough information Control: No feeding. Dewormed Provider: Partnership between federal government, Save the Children and USAID linkages. But mothers asked to bring a handful of positive deviant foods Supervised: Mothers and children attended health centres all day. Sounds like pretty strict supervision, but not clear that intake was monitored
Outcomes	Physical: WAZ, HAZ, WHZ
Notes	Seems like quite a good programme, but it was limited to every other day. The method was based on local behaviours that resulted in good child development. However, it is difficult to determine how randomisation and child selection were done
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Non randomised study
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Non randomised study
Baseline outcome measurements	High risk	Despite matching of communes and random selection, the intervention families were somewhat better off on a number of characteristics, although this differential only reached statistical significance for child wasting
Baseline characteristics	Low risk	The field workers and supervisors, affiliated with the Research and Training Center for Community Development (RTCCD) in Hanoi, were bachelor’s level physicians and sociologists with previous health data collection experience in rural Vietnam. Every evening, the field workers reviewed forms for completeness and accuracy. Supervisors reviewed all forms and discussed any discrepancies. If necessary and logistically feasible, households were revisited to reconcile these discrepancies
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	241 children were enrolled in the study at baseline, including 2 children younger than 5 months and 2 children older than 25 months who were excluded from these analyses (table 1). At month 6, there were a total of 232 children with complete data
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not mentioned
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Because participants, personnel, and parents couldn't be blinded as children received food
Protection from contamination	Unclear risk	Participants were randomised by commune and they were chosen to be non‐contiguous. But only half of participants attended and feeding was only 12 days a month
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available