Duchemin 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline Characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: NR Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (wait list) Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: NR Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age (mean ± SD): 44.2 (NR) Sex (N (% female)): 28 (88%) Sample size: 32 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 14.5 (NR) Included criteria: participants were personnel, 18 or older, from the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of a large academic medical center. Eligibility criteria included any personnel working in the SICU and having contact with the patients or their families. Excluded criteria: individuals practising mindfulness, yoga, or exercising more than 30 minutes a day were excluded, as were individuals with third trimester pregnancy or a history of recent surgery if it limited ability to perform the gentle yoga movement Pretreatment: there were no significant differences between the two groups for age (P = 0.9496, t = 0.0638), years of experience (P = 0.9485, t = 0.06512), or years working in the SICU (P = 0.8702, t = 0.1648). Compliance rate: NR Response rate: not able to assess as the exact number of eligible individuals is not reported. More than 200 individuals working in the SICU were eligible to participate and were informed about the study through flyers and information provided at staff meetings. Thirty‐two individuals were interested in participating and all were eligible to participate because of minimal exclusion criteria to reflect real workplace conditions. Type of healthcare worker: various healthcare staff but 69% nurses
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The 8‐week group MBI combines a didactic introduction/discussion and a combination of mindfulness and yoga practises with music at each session16. The intervention was delivered by M Klatt, a trained mindfulness and certified yoga instructor, who developed the MBI to be pragmatically performed in a work setting. The protocol combines elements of mindfulness meditation, yoga movements, and relaxation through music. All sessions last 1 hour except for week five sessions that lasts 2 hours and includes mindful eating. After introduction of the weekly theme/prompt, the participants are led through a body scan, gentle stretching, yoga, progressive relaxation, and/or an eating meditation (for the two‐hour session), and then into formal meditation. Each week a different topic is highlighted. The music is standardized to be the same background music in each session, and in the background of each meditation practise contained on CDs, which were provided to participants to facilitate daily practise. The intervention is 8 weeks in length, paralleling the mindfulness‐based‐stress‐reduction (MBSR) traditional program, with shortening of the group session duration for the setting. Participants are asked to perform 20‐minute daily individual practises if possible. The group stress‐reduction sessions were delivered at the workplace during work hours. Work coverage was assured for the participants during the time of the group sessions and assessments The number of sessions: 8 Duration of each session on average: 1 hour except for week five sessions that lasted two hours. Participants are asked to perform 20‐minute daily individual practises if possible. Duration of the entire intervention: 8 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: Trained mindfulness and certified yoga instructor Intervention form: Group, face‐to‐face, at work during work hours Control (wait list) Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: Participants randomly assigned to the control wait‐list group received the mindfulness sessions after the first group had finished their eight‐week intervention and after completion of the second set of assessments 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	DASS ‐ stress Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Perceived Stress Scale Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ emotional exhaustion Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ depersonalization Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Professional Quality of Life (ProQOF) Outcome type: Continuous Outcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding: Funded in part by the OSU Harding Behavioral Health Stress, Trauma and Resilience program Country: Unites States Setting: A large academic medical center Comments: NR Authors name: Anne‐Marie Duchemin Institution: Department of Psychiatry, The Ohio State University, Email: anne‐marie.duchemin@osumc.edu Address: 1670 Upham Drive, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Time period: NR
Notes	Not able to include in analysis due to missing data.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 using Graphpad software to intervention group or waiting list control group, with stratification by gender and type of work. Assessments were performed for all"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 using Graphpad software to intervention group or waiting list control group, with stratification by gender and type of work. Assessments were performed for all participants," Difficult 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	Quote: "Questionnaires and samples were coded." Participants were not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "There was no drop‐out and all participants completed the 2 sets of assessments."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or study protocol reported, nor did we find one online
Other bias	Unclear risk	Quote: "was considered statistically significant. RESULTS More than 200 individuals working in the SICU were eligible to participate and were informed about the study through flyers and information provided at staff meetings. Thirty‐two individuals were interested in participating and all were eligible to participate due to minimal exclusion criteria to reflect real workplace conditions. Participants (n = 32) were" Not able to assess the response rate as the exact number of eligible individuals is not reported. Compliance not reported.