Axisa 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Evaluation of a well‐being workshop Age 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 44: 12 (52) 5 (22) 6 (26) Sex ((N) % female): 16 (70%) Sample size: 23 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (no intervention) Age 25 tp 29 30 to 34 35 to 44: 16 (70) 4 (17) 3 (13) Sex ((N) % female): 18 (78%) Sample size: 23 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 44: 28 (61) 9 (20) 9 (20) Sex ((N) % female): 34 (74%) Sample size: 46 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: recruitment was restricted to physician trainees completing their RACP basic physician training in New South Wales (NSW) hospitals. Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: differences between groups at 3 and 6 months were assessed using linear regression models, with group as a covariate, and adjusted for the participants’ baseline value of the outcome measure. Compliance rate: not explicitly reported "Lack of control over work rosters, difficulty swapping shifts, being on call or studying for the RACP exams, were major factors influencing the intervention group participant attendance at workshops" Response rate: 88% Type of healthcare worker: exclusively physician trainees
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Evaluation of a wellbeing workshop Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: following review of the international literature, a workshop was developed in consultation with local experts to promote health and wellbeing for physician trainees. The workshop objectives were to outline strategies for wellbeing and stress management and to encourage participants to apply these strategies in their own lives. The workshop incorporated case studies specifically developed for physician trainees, a holistic well‐being framework and group work activities to encourage discussion about approaches to work, life and self‐care. Some topics in the workshop included stressors relating to work–life balance, understanding well‐being and resilience, mindfulness, barriers to looking after well‐being, giving and receiving feedback and stress management strategies. The number of sessions: 1 Duration of each session on average: 4.5 hours including 1‐hour break Duration of the entire intervention: 4.5 hours Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: Workshops were facilitated by specialist clinicians who received specific training to facilitate the workshops Intervention form: Group Control (no intervention) Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: NA 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	ProQOL ‐ Burnout Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome DASS ‐ stress Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome DASS ‐ Anxiety Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome DASS ‐ Depression Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article Country: Australian Setting: Several hospitals Comments: NR Authors name: Carmen Axisa Institution: University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, and; PhD Candidate, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Email: carmen.axisa@uts.edu.au Address: University of Technology Sydney, Building 10, Level 7, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. Time period: 2014‐105
Notes	DASS‐stress included in analysis 1.1 and 1.2 DASS‐Anxiety included in analysis 1.4 and 1.5
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group using a web‐based True Random Number Generator service."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possibly foresee assignment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were 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	High risk	46 of the 59 (78%) randomised participants included in the analyses. Not reported whether lost to follow‐up was at random.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No trial registration or no study protocol reported. No indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Compliance difficult to assess.