Dyrbye 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention Age in years (%) 31‐40, 41‐50, 51‐60, > 60: 34 (25.2%) 41 (30.4%) 40 (39.6%) 20 (14.8%) Sex (N (% female)): 48 (35.6%) Sample size: 145 Years of experience (%) < 5, 5‐10, 11‐20, 21‐30, > 30: 28 (20.7%), 32 (23.7%), 43 (31.9%), 25 (18.5%), 7 (5.2%) Control (no intervention) Age in years (%) 31‐40, 41‐50, 51‐60, > 60: 43 (31.4%), 44 (32.1%), 34 (24.8%), 6 (11.7%) Sex (N (% female)): 40 (29.2%) Sample size: 145 Years of experience (%) < 5, 5‐10, 11‐20, 21‐30, > 30: 3 (16.8%), 37 (27.0%), 49 (35.8%), 19 (13.9%), 9 (6.6%) Overall Age in years (%) 31‐40, 41‐50, 51‐60, > 60: NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 290 Years of experience (%) < 5, 5‐10, 11‐20, 21‐30, > 30: NR Included criteria: NR Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: Reported socio demographic baseline characteristics of participants randomised to the intervention group were similar to socio demographic baseline characteristics of participants randomised to the control group Compliance rate: We could not determine if participants in the intervention arm actually completed their chosen weekly micro‐tasks Response rate: NR Type of healthcare worker: physicians from various disciplines
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Intervention Type of intervention: Intervention type 1: to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Menu of five to six self‐directed micro‐tasks and were asked to select and complete one task of their choosing weekly and intentionally designed to cultivate professional satisfaction and well‐being in one of six domains: Promote meaning in work and job satisfaction, Foster teamwork and social support at work, Nurture personal relationships and work‐life balance, Recognise and build on personal strengths (courage, honesty, patience, wisdom, humanity, justice, and transcendence), Encourage effective problem‐solving, and Promote positive emotions The number of sessions: six tasks Duration of each session on average: five to seven minutes Duration of the entire intervention: 10 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: Individual (digital) Control (no intervention) Type of intervention: No intervention 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 ‐ Personal accomplishment (lack of) Outcome type: Continuous Outcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation Outcome type: Continuous Outcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: USA Setting: Mayo Clinic Departments of Medicine in Minnesota and Arizona and Mayo Clinic Department of Surgery in Minnesota Comments: NR Authors name: Dyrbye LN, West CP, Richards ML, Ross HJ, Satele D, Shanafelt TS Institution: Mayo Clinic Email: Dyrbye.liselotte@mayo.edu Address: 200 Second Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, United States Time period: NR
Notes	MBI‐EE included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Participants were randomized to an intervention group or a control group using a computer‐generated algorithm. Randomization was stratified by speciality (Internal Medicine or Surgery), campus (Rochester or Arizona), and baseline response to the single item, “The work I do is meaningful to me” (from the Empowerment at Work Scale (Spreitzer, 1995)). All participants were asked to complete baseline and end‐of‐study (three month) survey. For both surveys consented participants received an e‐mailed cover letter with a link to a web‐based survey."
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 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	Over 90% of participants in each arm completed both the baseline and end‐of‐study surveys.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registration, nor did we find one online.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Response rate not reported.   Quote: We could not determine if participants in the intervention arm actually completed their chosen weekly micro‐tasks