Roberts 2003.
| Methods | Design: cluster‐RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: no |
|
| Participants | Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: N/A What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: children in each class were rank ordered on the basis of CDI scores. The 13 children with the highest score from each class were invited to participate. In classes with fewer than 13 students, all were eligible to participate. Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: those with current and/or past depression not excluded Baseline severity of depression: CDI: 11.1 (sub‐threshold) Mean age: 11.9 Age range: 11 to 13 Percentage male: 50.3% 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: Australia |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: yes Online: no Name of programme: Penn Resiliency Program Number of sessions: 12 sessions Length of sessions: 120 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 24 hours Duration of treatment period: 12 weeks Group size: unclear Delivered by: mental health experts and school nurses Fidelity: assessed as adequate Type of comparison: TAU comprising monitoring of symptoms and regular health curriculum |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: CDI ≈ 15.0 Name of self‐report depression measure: CDI Name of clinical report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: RCMAS Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention, 6 months (medium‐term), 30 months (long‐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) | Unclear risk | "...randomly assigned..." (p.623) Method of randomisation not specified, however |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information specified |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | High risk | "Parents were informed of their child's school group status..." (p.623). Parents therefore could have communicated allocation to their children. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | High 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: 5.3% Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: observed cases Intention‐to‐treat analyses: not undertaken |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Protocol not available |
| Other bias | Low risk | Trial not conducted by those who developed the intervention |
| Implementation integrity | Low risk | Implementation integrity assessed: yes Implementation integrity adequate: "With only one exception, facilitators achieved a high level of program integrity..." (p.623) Implementation integrity reported: yes |