Amutio 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Mindfulness training Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 21 Years of experience (> 10 years): NR Control (wait list) Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 21 Years of experience (> 10 years): NR Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): 47.3 ± 9.4 Sex (N (% female)): 24 (57%) Sample size: 42 Years of experience (> 10 years): 28 (67%) Included criteria: willingness to complete the questionnaires and commitment to adhere to the programmes' attendance and dedication requirements. Excluded criteria: were being in psychiatric or psychological treatment, or not being actively practising at the time of the study. Pretreatment: no initial differences between groups were found for the main variables of our study (mindfulness, F = 2.51, P = 0.12; burnout, F = 1.11, P = 0.30; and emotional exhaustion, F = 2.87, P = 0.10), including demographic or professional characteristics (P > 0.05) Type of healthcare worker: exclusively physicians Response rate: NR Compliance rate: regarding acceptability of the intervention to participants, the attendance rates for the two phases of the program were 88% for weekly sessions and 72% for monthly sessions
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindfulness training Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The sessions were taught following the standardised MBSR protocol. Twenty‐minute PowerPoint presentation of a particular topic related to the medical profession (e.g. dealing with suffering, interpersonal relationships). A 45‐minute mindfulness exercise (body‐scan, yoga stretches, and meditation—i.e. breathing, observing thoughts, walking meditation). A 60‐minute group reflection about the weekly topic and the experiences with the mindfulness practice. This included Krasner's narrative and appreciative enquiry exercises. Dedicated time to record HR and BP at the beginning and end of each session. Additionally, participants were asked to practice mindfulness exercises every day for a period of 45 minutes by means of a set of CDs distributed to them and containing the same exercises as the ones practised in the class sessions. They were also required to register the number of days practised per week and the length of each of the sessions in minutes by means of a record sheet specially designed for that purpose The number of sessions: 9 Duration of each session on average: 2.5 hours + 45 min homework Duration of the entire intervention: 8 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: MBSR instructor who was trained by Kabat‐Zinn at the Stress Reduction Clinic in the University of Massachusetts (USA) Intervention form: Group + homework Control (wait list) Type of the intervention: wait list Description of the intervention: The wait list control group was told that a similar course would be offered again. The number of sessions: NA Duration of each session on average: NA Duration of the entire intervention: NA Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: NA Intervention deliverer: NA Intervention form: NA
Outcomes	Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional Exhaustion Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment (lack of) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: The authors report the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)provided funding for the materials and travel expenses. The Official Medical College of Biscay in Spain provided the physical setting to conduct the sessions. Country: Spain Setting: all participants were actively used in public (42.9%) or private (52.4%) practice. Comments: NR Authors name: Alberto Amutio, PhD; Institution: Department of Social Psychology and Methodology of the BehavioralSciences, Faculty of Psychology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain Email: Alberto.amutio@ehu.eus Address: Avda Tolosa, 70, Donostia‐San Sebastian, Gipuzko Time period: NR
Notes	MBI‐EE included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Participants in the experimental group (n = 21) were randomly selected using the statistical program SPSS 20.0. The remaining subjects were included in the control group (n = 21)."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: Unable to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possibly foresee assignment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Each participant in the experimental group committed to attending the sessions, doing the exercises assigned as home‐work, and answering the evaluation questions at the end of each of the phases of the study. The waitlist control group was told that a similar course would be offered again." Judgement Comment: Participants not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	not explicitly stated whether participants dropped out.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or no study protocol reported, nor did we find one online.
Other bias	Low risk	No indication of other sources of bias