Skip to main content

Table 3 Cluster-level characteristics used to balance the randomisation (N = 64)

From: Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the United Kingdom: a methodological systematic review

Characteristic

Statistic

Deprivation (school or area in which school is based)

                Yes – Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals, n (%)

21 (33)

                Yes – Townsend Index [86]a, n (%)

2 (3)

                Yes – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) [87]b, n (%)

1 (2)

                Yes – Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) [87]c, n (%)

1 (2)

                Yes – Unspecifiedd, n (%)

6 (9)

Cluster size

                Yes, n (%)

23 (36)

Geographic area of school

                Yes, n (%)

13 (20)

Pupil ethnicity summary

 

                Yes, n (%)

5 (8)

Co-educational status of school

Yes, n (%)

5 (8)

School performance

                Yes, n (%)

5 (8)

School type

                Yes, n (%)

2 (3)

Othere

                Yes, n (%)

24 (38)

  1. aTownsend Index quantifies material deprivation within a population
  2. bIncome Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) is the proportion of all children aged 0 to 15 living in income deprived families in different local areas across England
  3. cIndex of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) measures relative deprivation for small areas (or neighbourhoods) in England
  4. dDid not state which measure of deprivation used
  5. eOther balancing factors include: Percentage of students who actively commuted to school; School; English-speaking versus Welsh-speaking school; Local sexual health services; Number of students in year group; Date of entry of school into study; School in urban versus rural area; Percentage of children speaking English as an additional language; Quality and quantity of current school sex education; Local authority; Percentage of pupils staying on after age 16 years; Special educational need status; Whether school has existing policy similar to the intervention; School expressed preference for allocation (control versus intervention versus no preference); Health-promoting school status; Percentage of children in year group of interest with no dental decay; Frequency and timetabling of personal, social, and health education lessons; Preferred timetabling of the intervention; Facilitator of the intervention (Regional Project Manager)