Table 3.
Risk of bias and quality assessment for process research.
| Questions | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Were there clear research questions? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Did the collected data allow to address the research questions? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Was randomisation appropriately performed? | + | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | + | + |
| Were the groups comparable at baseline? | + | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Were outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided? | + | + | ± | + | - | + | + | + | + | + | ± | ± | + | ± |
| Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention? | + | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | ± | + | + | + | + | + |
Yes (+), unclear (±), no (–).
Dadds et al. (56); De Bruin et al. (57); Dekovic et al. (58); Eddy and Chamberlain (59); Fosco et al. (68); Gonzales et al. (69); Henggeler et al. (60); Henggeler et al. (61); Hogue et al. (62); Huey et al. (63); Jensen et al. (64); Pantin et al. (65); Paquete and Vitaro (66); Van Ryzin and Leve (67).