Kauer 2012.
| Methods | Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: yes |
|
| Participants | Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: K10 ≥ 16.0 What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: N/A Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: unclear whether a diagnostic interview was undertaken and whether those with current and/or past episodes of depression were excluded Baseline severity of depression: DASS‐21 depression subscale: 20.0 (moderate) Mean age: 18.1 Age range: 14 to 24 Percentage male: 28.0% Setting: GP clinics State what psychiatric diagnoses were excluded: those diagnosed with any severe psychiatric or medical condition (e.g. current psychosis) and those requiring imminent hospitalisation Suicide risk excluded: unclear Parents with history of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder excluded: no Country: Australia |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: BT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: N/A Online: telephone Name of programme: MOBILETYPE Number of sessions: recommended 2 entries per day Length of sessions: 1 to 3 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 2.5 hours (based on reported average number of messages sent per day being 3, for an average of 17 days, assuming 3 minutes per message) Duration of treatment period: 2 to 4 weeks Group size: N/A (individual) Delivered by: N/A (self‐monitoring) Fidelity: not assessed Type of comparison: AP |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: N/A Name of self‐report depression measure: DASS‐d Name of clinical report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: DASS‐a Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention, between 2 to 4 weeks (short‐term) |
|
| Notes | Author contacted for methodological detail: no Author contacted for treatment manual: no Author contacted for outcome data: no |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "...a random seed generators to allocate each program to the 200 identification numbers in at the individual level..." (no pagination specified) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | "A research assistant downloaded each program by selecting the next consecutive link for the next study mobile and was blinded to allocation..." (no pagination specified) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | High risk | "Participants...became aware of the group allocation at the post‐test..." (no pagination specified) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | High risk | "...GPs because aware of the group allocation at the post‐test..." (no pagination specified) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 26.3% (numbers from Reid 2011, Figure 1) Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: unclear, assume observed cases Intention‐to‐treat analyses: maximum likelihood estimation (based on 114 rather than 118 participants, however) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Protocol not available. However, information on the SF‐12 Health Survey, the AUDIT, the Adolescent Coping Scale, and a range of other outcome measures no reported in this paper or in a related publication (i.e. Reid 2011). In addition, 6‐month follow‐up data are also not reported. |
| Other bias | High risk | Trial conducted by those who developed the intervention |
| Implementation integrity | Low risk | Implementation integrity assessed: N/A (standardised) Implementation integrity adequate: N/A Implementation integrity reported: N/A |