I think I don't understand your question. A small intervention effect means your intervention doesn't do much compared to the control intervention.

How much heterogeneity do you have in your meta-analysis? What is the I2? Is it statistically significant? If it is significant or the I2 is greater than ~25%, it would be wise to identify and test moderator variables that could possible explain this heterogeneity using subgroup analysis and/or meta-regression.

Babak Saravi Gordon L Warren apologies on the question not being that clear, I am new to meta-analyses (and research). So, yes, I did a systematic review with meta-analysis and found that there was a significant (p=0.033) but small effect between the control and intervention groups among the included studies resulting in a significant but small pooled effect size (Hedges's g =0.202). I square is substantial at 92% . Unfortunately subgroup analyses / meta-regression can't be analysed due to a low amount of studies and study size participants. The pre-post analyses were more promising (Hedges's g =0.753 p=0.000) in favour of the intervention.

I guess yes, it would be how to discuss these results in the discussion. The study question was looking at the effect of an intervention, there were control groups in 6 of 20 studies, study design varied (RCT, Pre post with and without concurrent controls and a pseduo-randomised), outcome measures also varied (all were psychosocial related but inconsistent).

Any further help / direction is greatly appreciated!