Horowitz a2007.
| Methods | Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: yes |
|
| Participants | Description: universal Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: N/A What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: N/A Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: not undertaken Baseline severity of depression: CDI: 9.7 (sub‐threshold) Mean age: 14.4 Age range: 14 to 15 Percentage male: 46.0% Setting: school State what psychiatric diagnoses were excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Suicide risk excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Parents with history of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Country: USA |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: yes Online: no Name of programme: CB programme (based on Coping with Stress programme) Number of sessions: 8 sessions Length of sessions: 90 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 12 hours Duration of treatment period: 8 weeks Group size: 8 to 15 (median 11) Delivered by: students Fidelity: not assessed Type of comparison: TAU comprising normal health classes in which students were taught the standard wellness curriculum |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: N/A Name of self‐report depression measure: CDI and CES‐D Name of clinical report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: N/A Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention, 6 months (medium‐term) |
|
| Notes | Author contacted for methodological detail: no Author contacted for treatment manual: yes (not provided) Author contacted for outcome data: no |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "A random number list was used...to assign participants..." (p.695) "Within class periods, participants were randomly assigned to condition unless there were fewer than 15 students participating. This occurred for only two classes...for those two classes, randomization was done at the class level rather than at the individual level" (p.695). Method of randomisation not specified, however |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information specified |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | High risk | "Participants and group leaders were aware of group assignment..." (p.695) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | Unclear risk | All outcomes self‐reported. Assessor blinding therefore not applicable. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 1.32% Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: observed cases Intention‐to‐treat analyses: the authors undertook sensitivity analyses using an unspecified method. However, the authors state that results did not differ from those using observed cases. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Protocol not available |
| Other bias | High risk | Trial 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 |