Whittaker 2012.
| 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: diagnostic interview was not undertaken, however, those with RADS scores ≥ 76.0 or those with current depression according to the CRDS‐R were excluded. Unclear whether those with past episodes of depression were also excluded. Baseline severity of depression: RADS‐II: 53.5 (subthreshold) Mean age: 14.3 Age range: 13 to 17 Percentage male: 31.7% 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: New Zealand |
|
| Interventions | Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: N/A Online: telephone Name of programme: MEMO Number of sessions: 2 mobile telephone messages per day (mixture of SMS messages and links to videos and/or external websites) Length of sessions: unclear Intensity (total number of hours): unclear Duration of treatment period: 9 weeks Group size: telephone messages (individual) Delivered by: N/A (self‐monitoring) Fidelity: N/A, although only three‐quarters of participants viewed at least half of the messages sent Type of comparison: AP |
|
| Outcomes | Diagnosis: K‐SADS Name of self‐report depression measure: RADS‐2 and MFQ Name of clinical report depression measure: CDRS‐R Name of anxiety measure: N/A Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention and 12 months (medium‐term) |
|
| Notes | Author contacted for methodological detail: no 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) | Low risk | "...computer‐based randomisation..." (no pagination specified) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | "...allocation concealment was maintained by computer‐based randomisation so that researchers were unaware of possible allocation" (no pagination specified) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects | Low risk | "Participants were not aware of which program was the intervention and which was the control..." (no pagination specified) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors | Low risk | "The interviews were conducted by research assistants blinded to allocation..." |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 2.3% Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: observed cases (via correspondence) Intention‐to‐treat analyses: LOCF (via correspondence) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Trial protocol would suggest that all intended outcomes were assessed |
| 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 |