Aranda Ausern 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Control (no intervention) Age in years (mean ± SD): 49.9 (8.7) Sex (N (% female)): 21 (95.5%) Sample size: 22 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 24.0 (10.8) Mindfulness and self‐compassion program Age in years (mean ± SD): 50.0 (7.9) Sex (N (% female)): 17 (73.9%) Sample size: 23 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 24.0 (8.0) Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): 4.9 (8.2) Sex (N (% female)): 38 (84.4%) Sample size: 45 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 24.0 (9.3) Included criteria: informed consent, committing to completing the pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaires, attending at least 75% of the sessions and practising mindfulness and self‐compassion for 45 minutes a day. Excluded criteria: having completed a mindfulness and/or compassion program in the previous 6 months; having a psychiatric illness that did not make participation in the study advisable. Pretreatment: they were not significant in any of the characteristics considered. Type of healthcare worker: various healthcare staff but 46.7% nurses and physicians 53.3% Response rate: NR Compliance rate: Intervention group 92% and control group 92%
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Control (no intervention) Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: NA Number of sessions: NA Duration of each session: NA Duration of the entire intervention: NA Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: NA Intervention deliverer: NA Intervention form: NA Mindfulness and self‐compassion program Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Each session dealt with a specific topic and included mindfulness and self‐compassion practices, with time for dialogue and exchange of experiences among the participants. Material was provided for the practices at home (manual of theoretical contents, audios and practice diaries). Learning how to become conscious of one's breathing. Throughout the intervention, the instructor taught participants the basics of postural alignment, deep breathing, and monitoring the mind with simple meditations. Each session concluded with deep relaxation. Number of sessions: 8 sessions Duration of each session: 2.5 hours each Duration of the entire intervention: 8 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: It was taught by an instructor with a master's degree in Mindfulness and trained in the MBSR and MSC programs. Intervention form: group
Outcomes	Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Reporting: Fully reported Direction: Lower is better Data value: Endpoint
Identification	Sponsorship source: This work has been partially financed by the Department of Health of the Government of Navarra, by obtaining the first prize in the II Contest of Ideas for Health Research in Primary Care. Country: Spain Setting: NR Comments: NR Authors name: Aranda Auserón Institution: Subdirección de Farmacia, Servicio Navarro de Salud‐Osasunbidea (SNS‐O), Pamplona, Spain Email: garandaa@navarra.es Address: NR
Notes	PSS included in analysis 2.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The randomization of the groups was carried out by assigning correlative numbers to the 48 participants and selecting a total of 25 from a balloon with 48 numbered balls; these numbers were part of the intervention group, with the rest remaining in the control group.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to understand whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, during, enrolment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 of the 48 (16%) randomised participants were lost to follow‐up, which is below our pre‐defined cut‐off point.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial protocol or registration mentioned in the study nor did we find one online.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Low participation rate in the study (48 of 1281; 3.75%)