Emani 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Chromotherapy‐based intervention Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 40 (100%) Sample size: 40 Years of experience < 15 years and > 15 years (mean ± SD): < 25 (nr). > 15 (nr) Control (no intervention) Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 40 (100%) Sample size: 40 Years of experience < 15 years and > 15 years (mean ± SD): < 24 (nr). > 16 (nr) Overall Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 80 Sample size: 80 Years of experience < 15 years and > 15 years (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: inclusion criteria: interested in attending chromotherapy educational and consultation sessions at least three times per month for a period of 3 months, age range between 25 and 45 years Excluded criteria: exclusion criteria included existing comorbid clinical conditions that could have any effect on fatigue such as depression, thyroid disease or severe infection, surgery operation from three months ago, or participants who were suffering from malnutrition and iron deficiency anaemia, and participants who were unable for other reasons to continue their participation in this research. Pretreatment: there were no significant differences between the two groups for age, years of experience, or years working Compliance rate: of 96 nurses 80 participated in all sessions > 83% Response rate: NR Type of healthcare worker: nurses
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Chromotherapy‐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 interventions for experimental ICU included three parts; (A) changing colour of decoration in experimental ICU, such as installation of colour panels in ICU ward, (B) providing a mobile cover and a pencil case in yellow, orange, and green colours based on the principles of chromotherapy, for each of experimental group nurses, and (C) in addition, three educational sessions on chromotherapy were held and then participants received individualised consulting sessions weekly on chromotherapy applying in their personal life and in their own home for 3 months. The number of sessions: 3 times per month Duration of each session on average: NR Duration of the entire intervention: 3 months Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: Group and individual 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	Professional Quality of Life (ProQol) ‐ Compassion satisfaction Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Profesional Quality of Life (ProQol) ‐ Burn out Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) ‐ Secondary traumatic stress Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Iran Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: Roghiye Emani Institution: Nursing and Midwifery Faculty of Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran; Email: haleh_ghavami@yahoo.co.uk Address: Nursing and Midwifery Faculty of Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Pardis–e‐Nazlou, 11 km of Nazlou Road, Urmia, Iran Time period: NR
Notes	PRO‐QOl_BO included in analysis 2.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A total of 96 ICU nurses assessed for eligibility; among them 80 nurses (according to inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study) were randomized to the experimental group or to the control group."  "For randomization in this study, an independent researcher‐made random allocation cards using computer‐generated the random numbers. The allocator kept the original random allocation sequences in an inaccessible third place and worked with a copy. "
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "For randomization in this study, an independent researcher‐made random allocation cards using computer‐generated the random numbers. The allocator kept the original random allocation sequences in an inaccessible third place and worked with a copy."
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	Unclear risk	Lost to follow‐up not reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	IRCT registration number: IRCT2017101431588N3. No indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Response rate not able to assess. Compliance not reported.