Charbonneau 2012.
| Methods | Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: yes |
|
| Participants | Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: N/A What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: scoring above the average on the negative reactivity and negative intensity subscales of the Affect Intensity Measure (AIM; Larsen 1986). Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: not undertaken. Unclear whether those with current and/or past episodes of depression were excluded. Baseline severity of depression: CES‐D: 19.9 (mild) Mean age: 18.0 Age range: 17 to 19 Percentage male: 0.0% Setting: university Psychiatric diagnoses excluded: unclear Suicide risk excluded: unclear Parents with history of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder excluded: unclear Country: USA |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: third wave (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: yes Online: no Name of programme: Women and Relaxation, Openness Contemplation and Kindness (ROCK) Number of sessions: 8 sessions Length of sessions: 1 hour Intensity (total number of hours): 8 hours Duration of treatment period: 8 weeks Group size: 10 to 12 Delivered by: masters‐level graduate student (clinical psychology) Fidelity: not assessed. However, researcher who developed the intervention also delivered all 8 intervention sessions. Type of comparison: unclear. Described as a “control group”. |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: SCID‐I Name of self‐report depression measure: CES‐D Name of clinician report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: N/A Name of general functioning measure: SACQ Assessment point: post‐intervention, short‐term and medium‐term |
|
| Notes | Author contacted for methodological detail: yes (not provided) Author contacted for treatment manual: yes (not provided) Author contacted for outcome data: yes (provided) |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information specified |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information specified |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | Unclear risk | Content of the control condition was not adequately described, therefore difficult to determine whether participants would have been able to determine to which group they had been allocated or not. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | Low risk | "Interviewers were blinded to participant condition" (p.31) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 8.00% dropped out whilst a further 12.50% did not complete the post‐intervention assessment. Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: for outcomes measured on a continuous scale (e.g. self‐reported depression scores), trial authors imputed missing item scores for those participants with fewer than 3 items missing. However, scores for those participants who missed more than 3 items on a scale, or who missed the scale entirely, were not imputed. Data for continuous outcomes therefore may contain some imputed values. Data for categorical outcomes (e.g. depression diagnosis) are based on observed cases (defined as those who attended at least 1 session). Intention‐to‐treat analyses: hierarchical linear modelling |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Protocol not available |
| Other bias | High risk | Trial and therapy sessions conducted by those who developed the intervention |
| Implementation integrity | Unclear risk | Implementation integrity assessed: unclear if assessed Implementation integrity adequate: N/A Implementation integrity reported: N/A |