Dunne 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Attention‐based training (ABT) Age in years: NR Sex (% female): NR Sample size: 29 Years of experience: NR Control (wait list) Age in years: NR Sex (% female): NR Sample size: 29 Years of experience: NR Overall Age in years: NR Sex (% female): NR Sample size: 58 Years of experience: NR Included criteria: a current staff member of the emergency department of St. James’ Hospital; preference to participate in the study and to be over 18 years of age Excluded criteria: alcohol or substance abuse within the past 6 months; more than four consecutive classes of meditation or other mind–body practises (including yoga and Tai‐chi) in the past two years; a diagnosis of schizophrenia; currently using (at time of enrolment) anti‐psychotic medication or recently started on anti‐depressant meditation (less than three months at the time of enrolment). Participants on a stable dose of anti‐depressant medication (for more than three months) were permitted but advised to consult with their general practitioner or psychiatrist prior to enrolment. Pretreatment: NR Type of healthcare worker: exclusively emergency department healthcare worker Response rate: 100% Compliance rate: 16 of the 29 followed at least two sessions > 55%
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Attention‐based training (ABT) Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Each session consisted of ABT practise and discussion on the importance of focused attention and the meaning of healthcare. ABT practise involved repeatedly focusing one’s attention on a chosen non‐English phrase (maranatha). The number of sessions: 4 Duration of each session on average: Two 20‐minute sessions over seven days (280 min in total). Duration of the entire intervention: seven weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: Education specialist, meditation expert and a healthcare professional. Intervention form: Group ‐ face‐to‐face Control (wait list) Type of the intervention: Wait‐list control 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	Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional Exhaustion Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment Outcome type: Continuous Outcome DASS ‐ stress Outcome type: Continuous Outcome DASS ‐ anxiety Outcome type: Continuous Outcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Ireland Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: PJ Dunne Institution: Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, Trinity College Email: padraicdunne@rcsi.com Address: Dublin D08 W9RT, Ireland Time period: NR
Notes	The authors kindly referred to the supplementary file.  MBI‐EE included in analysis 2.1 DASS anxiety included in analysis 2.3
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Emergency MDT participants were stratified by role and gender and allocated to intervention or no‐treatment control group using an online randomization tool [17]. Volunteers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Emergency MDT participants were stratified by role and gender and allocated to intervention or no‐treatment control group using an online randomization tool [17]." 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 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	Low risk	Quote: "There was no significant difference between study completers and withdrawers." 42 of the 58 participants were analysed. Response rate 72%. However, missing at random according to the authors.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The authors report a trial registration, nor did we find one online
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear whether participants differ on baseline characteristics.