Summary of findings 6. Comparison 8: home‐based family intervention versus treatment as usual.

Home‐based family intervention compared to treatment as usual
Patient or population: children and adolescents who engage in SH. Settings: outpatients. Intervention: home‐based family intervention. Comparison: treatment as usual.
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Treatment as usual	Home‐based family intervention
Repetition of SH at six months	Study population		OR 1.02 (0.41 to 2.51)	149 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1	Quality was downgraded as the nature of this intervention means it is unlikely participants and clinical personnel would have been blind to treatment allocation.
	147 per 1000	149 per 1000 (66 to 301)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SH: self‐harm.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹ Risk of bias was rated as SERIOUS as the nature of the intervention means that participants and clinical personnel could not have remained blind to treatment allocation suggesting that performance and detection bias may have been present.