Lillevoll 2014.
| Methods | Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: no. However, the intervention was translated into Norwegian by the research team. |
|
| 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: CES‐D: 11.2 (sub‐threshold) Mean age: 16.8 Age range: 15 to 20 Percentage male: 43.2% 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: Norway |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: N/A as MoodGYM freely available to access Online: yes Name of programme: MoodGYM Number of sessions: 5 sessions Length of sessions: 45 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 3.75 hours Duration of treatment period: 6 weeks Group size: N/A as MoodGYM individual‐based programme Delivered by: N/A (self‐monitoring) Fidelity: online, therefore standardised Type of comparison: NT |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: (no useable data) Name of self‐report depression measure: (no useable data) Name of clinical report depression measure: (no useable data) Name of anxiety measure: (no useable data) Name of general functioning measure: (no useable data) Assessment points: N/A |
|
| Notes | Author contacted for methodological detail: yes (not provided) Author contacted for treatment manual: no (MoodGYM freely available) Author contacted for outcome data: yes (not provided) |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "…randomization was undertaken using the SPSS program to generate the random numbers, which then were ordered in ascending order and allocated numbers from 1‐4." (p.4) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | "…randomization…was undertaken by the first author." (p.4) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | High risk | The nature of the trial suggests it is unlikely participants could have remained blind to the fact they were allocated to a no treatment control group. However, without access to the participant information sheets and PLS, level of blinding cannot be ascertained. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | Unclear risk | Correspondence with study authors confirmed all outcomes were self‐reported. Assessor blinding therefore not applicable. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 30.00%. Note that only 8.54% of those randomised actually registered with the MoodGYM programme. Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: unclear Intention‐to‐treat analyses: mean substitution |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Trial protocol indicates that all proposed outcome measures were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | No information specified |
| Implementation integrity | Low risk | Implementation integrity assessed: N/A (standardised) Implementation integrity adequate: N/A Implementation integrity reported: N/A |