Moskovic 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: RCT. Pre‐post study Unit of randomisation: computer‐generated random lists at 1 point in time
Participants	Healthcare provider: medical students Other: N/A Location/Setting: educational institutions in the USA Sample size: n = 117 (intervention group n = 58, control group n = 59) Number of withdrawals/dropouts: nil Sex: not reported Mean age: not reported Inclusion criteria: first‐ to third‐year students attending 4 medical school sites in the USA Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Intervention (n = 58): didactic plus outreach; medical students had a 3‐hour didactic interactive training session (delivered by an IPV advocate) on delivery of the 'In Touch with Teens' (dating violence) curriculum and delivered 3 x 1‐hour outreach education sessions to high school students over 2 ‐ 3 weeks Control (n = 59): 3‐hour didactic training only
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: pre‐post survey completed by students Attitudes (actual attitudes/beliefs, e.g. students’ attitudes about the general importance of addressing IPV and their confidence in addressing IPV and working with adolescents; and ‘value of outreach’), assessed using 15‐item instrument scored on 6‐point scale Knowledge (actual knowledge, e.g. IPV knowledge), assessed by 26 true–false and 8 multiple‐choice items Readiness to manage, respond or perceived efficacy to manage or respond. Author contacted for breakdown of confidence questions (that allow measurement of perceived readiness to manage). First attitude measure, labelled 'Confidence', included 9 items that asked students how confident they are in their ability to do things like “discuss the magnitude of the problem of domestic violence" Perceived identification or readiness to identify or screen for IPV (e.g. ability to “recognize the forms of abuse”) Other outcomes, including career plans, and 2 additional questions asking students about plans and expectations of working with adolescents in future practice Secondary outcomes: not reported Timing of outcome assessment: 2 time points; time point 1 at immediately after didactic training (knowledge), and time point 2 at 3 weeks once didactic plus outreach students completed high school training (knowledge and attitudes)
Notes	Study start date: 2005 Study end date: not reported Funding source: This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women’s Health Conflicts of interest: The author Dr Bigby received honoraria from Time Inc, and has been a consultant with Pfizer Inc and Lily, neither of which provided funding for or were involved in this study. No other authors report any potential conflicts of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: computer‐generated random lists at 1 point in time Quote: "Students were stratified based on background experience working with teens and IPV prevention and assigned using computer‐generated random numbers to a “didactic only” (control group) or a “didactic plus outreach” high school training experience" (p 1044).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: Allocation was done at 1 point in time after recruitment and hence investigators/researchers are not likely to know the allocation before assignment Quote: "Students were stratified based on background experience working with teens and IPV prevention and assigned using computer‐generated random numbers to a “didactic only” (control group) or a “didactic plus outreach” high school training experience" (p 1044)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: No information provided regarding blinding for research personnel. For students it is possible that there is risk of bias from being aware of allocation into an intervention group. Efforts to blind participants are not adequately described. Quote: "Students were aware that they were participating in a study and that group assignment was random" (p 1044)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: self‐reported outcomes used and therefore low risk of bias from external assessment Quote: "Knowledge of IPV was assessed by 26 true–false and 8 multiple‐choice items that were scored dichotomously. Students’ attitudes about the general importance of addressing IPV and their confidence in addressing IPV and working with adolescents were assessed using 15 items that students rated on 6‐point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree." (p 1045)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: Less than 20% attrition Quote:"Of the 123 medical students who were initially enrolled, 117 completed the study" (p 1045)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: the study protocol is not available, but it is likely that published reports include all expected outcomes Quote:"OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the experience of serving as educators in a community‐based adolescent IPV prevention program improves medical students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards victims of IPV, beyond that of didactic training." (p 1043) Comment: When skill is measured as 'confidence' to treat then all primary outcomes are considered as reported
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: the study appears to be free from other sources of bias