Hazzard 1984.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: quasi‐randomised controlled trial Unit of allocation: geographical region (city) Unit of analysis: participants Adjustment for clustering: no (participants received the intervention in groups. Teachers from 4 schools in 1 city were allocated to receive the intervention. Teachers from 4 schools in another city were allocated as controls. Intervention participants attended 1 of 2 workshops. No breakdown of schools by workshop groups was reported)
Participants	Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA Setting: 2 small cities in a county in the metro‐Atlanta area (Hazzard 1984, p 289) Sample size calculation: not reported Sample size: 104 4th, 5th, and 6th grade elementary teachers and junior high health education teachers (p 289); intervention group n = 51, control group n = 53 (Hazzard 1984, p 289) Mean age (SD): not reported by group; median age category = 31 to 35 years (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Gender: not reported by group; 83% = women, 17% = men (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Race/ethnicity: not reported Previous child protection training: not reported by group; 76% = yes, 24% = no (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Years of experience: not reported Previous experience with child maltreatment reporting: not reported by group; 38% = yes, 62% = no (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Baseline equivalence: not reported. Authors state that "analysis of demographic information revealed no significant differences between treatment and control teachers", but no data were reported to support this statement (Hazzard 1984, p 290)
Interventions	Name: one‐day training workshop on child abuse Contents: (i) rationale for training teachers about child abuse, (ii) definitions, myths, and realities, (iii) identifying abused children, (iv) family dynamics, (v) personal concerns about dealing with abuse cases, (vi) communicating with an abused child, (vii) legal issues and social service referrals; and (viii) “all types of abuse" (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Processes and teaching methods: (i) didactic presentations, (ii) questions and answers (Q&A) session with county protective services personnel, (iii) video presentations, (iv) modelling and role play, and (v) large and small group discussions (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Delivery mode: face‐to‐face workshops Trainers and qualifications: mental health professionals (1 man and 1 woman) with extensive experience with child abuse (Hazzard 1984, p 290) Duration: 1 day (Hazzard 1984, p 288) Intensity: 1 x 6‐hour workshop (Hazzard 1984, p 289) Intervention integrity: not reported Comparison condition: no training
Outcomes	Eligible measures (outcome domain) Reported involvement in child abuse (primary outcome: number of reported cases of child abuse and neglect, measured subjectively by participant self‐reports of actual cases reported), comprising 1 item ("reporting a case of suspected abuse to a protective services agency") from a longer 7‐item measure of activities relating to child abuse Knowledge about child abuse (secondary outcome: knowledge of core concepts in child abuse and neglect), comprising a 34‐item scale with response options on a 5‐point Likert‐type scale Ineligible measures (reason): feelings about child abuse (measures emotional reactions to child abuse; not prespecified in the protocol for this review), comprising 3 typical‐case vignettes with Likert‐type responses to 6 emotions evoked, including: anger, disgust, sadness, discomfort, sympathy, and caring Timing of outcome assessment: pre‐test (1 week before workshop), post‐test (1 week after workshop), follow‐up (6 months later) (Hazzard 1984, p 289)
Notes	Funding: research funded by Emory University Research Fund; intervention workshops funded by McDonald Foundation, Atlanta Foundation, Metropolitan Atlanta Foundation, Ray & Elizabeth Lee Foundation, Gay & Erskine Love Foundation, James Starr Memorial Foundation, Shearson‐American Express, and American Tara Corporation Author contact: no
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: inadequate description of the generation of the randomised sequence Quote: "... school teachers (N = 104) were surveyed concerning their abuse‐related experience, knowledge and attitudes ... Half of the teachers (n = 51) were then randomly assigned to participate in a one‐day training workshop on child abuse" (Hazzard 1983, p 288)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: method of concealment was not reported by study authors
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: performance bias due to lack of blinding, and therefore likely knowledge of the allocated intervention by participants and personnel during the study, which may have impacted subjective study outcomes (i.e. self‐report measures)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: detection bias due to likely knowledge of the allocated intervention by outcome assessors, and outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding (pre‐post self‐report measures)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: the reported sample is 104 participants; however, the journal article does not report on attrition over time (i.e. at recruitment, intervention, outcome assessment)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Comment: study protocol not available, but authors describe the development of outcome measures specifically for the study. All outcomes are reported in the study, but not all outcomes were reported in a sufficiently complete manner to permit inclusion in meta‐analyses.
Other bias	High risk	Comment: additional potential sources of bias related to the specific study design have been identified
Reliability of outcome measures (measurement bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: outcome measures were developed specifically for the study. Authors reported coefficient alpha for the Knowledge of Child Abuse Scale (α = 0.80). Reported Involvement in Child Abuse was comprised of separate items, for which coefficient alpha was not appropriate (p 290).
Group comparability (selection bias)	High risk	Comment: information on the comparability of groups at baseline was not provided in sufficient detail for each outcome measure to enable assessment of equivalence. Authors report group equivalence based on demographic variables, but no data are reported to support this statement. Quote: "analysis of demographic information revealed no significant differences between treatment and control teachers" (Hazzard 1984, p 290)
Contamination (contamination bias)	Low risk	Comment: measures taken to prevent or minimise the possibility that participants in a control group might receive part or all of the intervention were not described to enable a precise assessment of contamination between groups. However, the experimental and control group participants were in different cities, thus reducing the likelihood of contamination.