Barbosa 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	‐Study design:  cluster‐randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Psychoeducational intervention Age in years (mean ± SD): 43.4 ± 10.0 Sex (N (% female)): 27 (100%) Sample size: 27 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 9.84 ± 4.9 Education‐only (active control) Age in years (mean ± SD): 45.9 ± 8.0 Sex (N (% female)): 31 (100%) Sample size: 31 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 9.4 ± 2.5 Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): 44.72 ± 9.0 Sex (N (% female)): 58 (100%)  Sample size: 58 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 9.6 ± 3.7 Included criteria: to be included in the study, DCWs had to be employed for at least two months (so adjustments to the residents and facility had been achieved) and provide morning personal care (i.e. period of time between 7AM and 12AM that involved activities related to bathing, grooming, dressing and toileting) to people with a diagnosis of moderate to severe dementia.  Excluded criteria: temporary DCWs and trainees were excluded as it was not possible to ensure their participation until the end of the study.  Pretreatment: None of the measured socio‐demographic variables were statistically significantly different at baseline. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the groups in perceived stress, burnout, or job satisfaction. Compliance rate: NR Response rate: 100% Type of healthcare worker: Exclusively direct care workers (DCWs)
Interventions	Psychoeducational intervention Type of the intervention: Intervention type 4 ‐ Combination of two or more of the above Description of the intervention: the supportive component aimed to provide DCWs with coping strategies to manage work‐related stress and prevent burnout (e.g. time‐management, assertiveness, and problem‐solving). At the end of each supportive component, relaxation techniques, stretching, and strengthening exercises were practised.  The number of sessions: 8 Duration of each session on average: 90 min Duration of the entire intervention: 8 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: by a gerontologist and a physical therapist with training and experience in PCC approaches and psycho‐educational groups Intervention form: group   Education‐only (active control) Type of the intervention: education‐only Description of the intervention: the control facilities received an education‐only intervention.The coordination, length, order, and content of the sessions were the same as the educational component of the PE intervention. It was the absence of the supportive component that distinguished both interventions. Each participant was assisted during morning care by the same professionals who helped DCWs to deliver a more PCC and clarified doubts that emerged from sessions. The number of sessions: 8 Duration of each session on average: 90 min Duration of the entire intervention: 8 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: by a gerontologist and a physical therapist with training and experience in PCC approaches and psycho‐educational groups Intervention form: Group
Outcomes	The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional exhaustion Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: This work was supported by grants (grant numbers SFRH/BD/72460/2010 and RIPD/CIF/109464/2009) from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) Country: Portugal Setting: 4 aged‐care facilities Comments: NR Authors name: Ana Barbosa Institution: Department of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Campus Universita ´rio de Santiago, Email: anabarbosa@ua.pt Address: Agra do Crastoedifıcio 30, Aveiro, Portugal. Time period: NR
Notes	PSS included in analysis 7.1 and 7.2
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	All four facilities agreed to participate and were randomly allocated to the experimental group—PE intervention—or control group— education‐only intervention, using a random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	After recruitment, the facilities within each pair were randomly assigned to the experimental group–PE intervention—or control group— education‐only intervention—using a random number generator. This decision was supported by the fact that education has become the most widely used approach with DCWs. Randomization occurred at the facility level because of possible contamination. No indication of allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were blinded to the experimental or the control group.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Researchers were not blinded to the intervention or assessments, however outcomes were PROs.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Lost to follow‐up not at random (due to sick leave, dismissal, vacation) but relatively small (13%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or study protocol reported, nor did we find one online. No indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unit of analysis error (i.e. when a study ignored the clustering of the data in their analysis). Compliance not reported.