Grabbe 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Community Resiliency Model Age (mean ± SD): 45.3 ± 13 Sex (N (% female)): 99 (100%) Sample size: 99 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 16 ± 14 Control (Nutrition) Age (mean ± SD): 45.9 ± 13 Sex (N (% female)): 97 (100%) Sample size: 97 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 19.2 ± 13 Overall Age (mean ± SD): 45.3 ± 13 Sex (N (% female)): 196 (100%) Sample size: 196 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 17.7 ± 13 Included criteria: NR Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: no significant differences were noted between the two randomised groups by age, years in nursing, or on any of the base‐line measures. Compliance rate: 59 of the 99 (60%) participants allocated to the intervention group did not receive the intervention Response rate: of the 1600 invited nurses, 196 completed baseline and were randomised (12%) Type of healthcare worker: nurses
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Community Resiliency Model Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: psycho‐education/sensory awareness skills training The number of sessions: 1 Duration of each session on average: 3 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 3 hours Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: the authors Intervention form: individual in group form Control (Nutrition) Type of the intervention: control Description of the intervention: class on nutrition/healthy eating The number of sessions: 1 Duration of each session on average: 3 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 3 hours Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: the authors Intervention form: individual in group form
Outcomes	Secondary traumatic stress (STSS) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: USA Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: Linda Grabbe Institution: Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA Email: lgrabbe@emory.edu Address: Corresponding author: Linda Grabbe, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA30322 Time period: 2017‐2018
Notes	CBI included in analysis 1.1 and 1.2
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "These participants were then randomly placed in either the intervention or control group. The"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Difficult to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possible foresee assignment. However, it is assumed that randomization was performed in one go and that participants and/or investigators could not 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	Participants were not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported whether lost to follow‐up was at random. 40% lost.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registration, nor did we find one.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Low response and compliance rate.