Table 1 Risk of bias in individual studies.
Paper | Blinding of assessors? | Treatment and control groups similar at baseline? | Percentage drop out at post intervention measure? | Analyzed by intention to treat | Subgroup analyses reported? | Statement of study funding | Included in meta-analysis? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bodenmann et al. [32] | No | Yes | Triple P 5% CCET 8% Control 23% (at long term follow up) | No | Yes | Yes. Gebert Ruef Foundation (Switzerland) | Yes |
Connell et al. [50] | No | More females in control group | Intervention 0% Control 8% | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Gallart & Matthey [26] | No | Yes (not tabulated) | Not stated (9% overall) | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Hahlweg et al. [51] | No | Yes | Intervention mothers 14% Control mothers 3% All fathers 19% (unable to distinguish intervention & control attrition) | No | No | Yes. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft | Yes |
No (parents and teachers) Yes (observers) | More parents in control group were single in comparison to the intervention group: 34% and 15.6%, respectively. Baseline differences between groups for two-parent households | Intervention 0.5% Control 1% | Yes | Yes | Yes. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft | Yes | |
Hoath & Sanders [53] | No (parents) Not known (teachers) | Control group had lower family income | Intervention 10% Control 0% | No | No | No | Yes |
Joachim et al. [54] | No | Higher proportion of male children in control group | Intervention 15% Control 10% | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Leung et al. [55] | No | Yes | Intervention 28% Control 20% | Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated | No | No | Yes |
Markie-Dadds & Sanders [56] | No | Yes | Intervention 3% Control 0% | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Markie-Dadds & Sanders [57] | No | Yes | Intervention 28% Control 23% | Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated | Yes | Queensland Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council | Yes |
Martin & Sanders [58] | No | Treatment group had lower ECBI scores | Intervention 30% Control 50% | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Matsumoto et al. [59] | No | Yes | Intervention 0% Control 0% | Yes (in effect) | No | No | Yes |
Matsumoto et al. [60] | No | No. ECBI scores substantially higher in intervention group | Not stated | No | No | No | Yes |
McTaggart & Sanders [21] | No | Yes | Not known | No | Yes | No | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Morawska & Sanders [61] | No (parents) Yes (observers) | Yes | Intervention 12% Control 10% | Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated | Yes | No | Yes |
Morawska & Sanders [62] | No | No. ECBI scores substantially higher in intervention group | Intervention 11% Control 3% | Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated | Yes | Yes. Telstra Foundation. | Yes |
Morawska et al. [63] | No | Yes | Intervention 18% Control 18% | Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated | Yes | No | Yes |
Nicholson & Sanders [28] | No (parents and step parents), Possibly (teenager's self-report) | Yes | 40% therapist-delivered 45% self-delivered 5% waiting list control | No | yes | Yes. National Health and Medical Research Council | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Plant & Sanders [64] | Yes (video observations) No (parent report) | Yes | Nil in all three groups | Yes (in effect) | Yes | Yes. Australian Research Council and Apex Foundation | ECBI only used as entry screener |
Prinz et al. [5] | Not clear | Not clear (five year average data presented) | Not known | Yes (in effect) | No | Yes. US CDC | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Roberts et al. [33] | Yes (video observations) No (parent report) | In some scales | 37% intervention 35% control | No | Yes | Yes. Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Sanders et al. [65] | Yes (video observations) No (parent report) | No data presented | EBFI 23%; SBFI 17% SDBFI 18%; control 8% | No | Yes | Yes. Grants from Queensland Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council | Yes |
Sanders et al. [66] | No | Yes | Not stated | Not clear | Yes | Partial - acknowledged source of TV programs and funding for distribution of video material | Yes |
Sanders et al. [6] | No | No. Intervention area sample younger, poorer, less well educated and more likely to be single | Not applicable | Not applicable | Yes | Yes. Several funders | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Sanders et al. [27] | No | No data presented except baseline measures | Intervention 23% Control 12% | Yes | No | Yes. Australia Research Council | Yes |
Stallman & Ralph [25] | No (parents) Possibly (teenager's self-report) | Yes | Intervention 19% Control 11% | Yes, but only per protocol results tabulated | Yes | Yes. Australian Rotary Health Research Fund, grant | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Turner et al. [67] | No | Yes | Intervention 23% Control 28% | No | Yes | Yes. Queensland Health and Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet | Yes |
Turner & Sanders [68] | Yes (video observations) No (parent report) | Yes | Intervention 19% Control 14% | For measures with a significant univariate condition effect at post-assessment | Yes | No | Yes |
Turner et al. [29] | Yes (video observations) No (parent report) | Yes | Intervention 0% Control 11% | No | Yes | Yes. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia | Not ECBI/CBCL |
West et al. [22] | No | Yes | Intervention 21% Control 6% | Yes | Yes | Yes. Telstra Foundation | Not ECBI/CBCL |
Whittingham et al. [24] | No | Yes | Intervention 0% Control 10% | Yes | Yes | Yes. School of Psychology University of Queensland | Yes |
Wiggins et al. [23] | No | Yes | Intervention 10% Control 26% | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Zubrick et al. [20] | No | No. Intervention area sample had younger children, less highly educated parents, more parenting problems and higher child ECBI scores. Different recruitment methods in intervention and control areas | Intervention 14% Control 4% | Not applicable | Yes | Yes. Western Australian Department of Health | No - Not randomized, and uncorrected outcome data for control group not given |