Gunasingam 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline Characteristics Debriefing intervention Age (n) 20‐24, 25‐30, >30: 4, 9, 0 Sex (N (% female)): 5 (28%) Sample size: 13 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (no intervention) Age (n) 20‐24, 25‐30, >30: 10, 6, 0 Sex (N (% female)): 8 (56%) Sample size: 18 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age (n) 20‐24, 25‐30, >30: NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 31 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: the sample of interns invited to participate were those who were based at the teaching hospital during term 3 of 2011 Excluded criteria: interns who were seconded to other hospitals were excluded 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: attendance at the debriefing sessions was not always 100%, leading to the potential argument that those who were regularly in attendance were experiencing more or less stress. Response rate: 31 of 52 invited interns entered this study (60%). Type of healthcare worker: physicians
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Debriefing intervention Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Debriefing, in the context of chronic work‐related emotional and interpersonal stressors, can be described as an opportunity to meet with peers and have a facilitated discussion with a senior and trusted health professional. It essentially involves peer support, feedback, mentoring and problem‐solving. Increased support and feedback has been shown to reduce work‐related psychological stress The number of sessions: four sessions Duration of each session on average: 1 hour Duration of the entire intervention: NR Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: senior health professionals Intervention form: Individual in group form 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	Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional Exhaustion Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Cynicism Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Professional efficacy Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Australia Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: Nishmi Gunasingam Institution: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia Email: nishmi@gmail.com Address: Dr Nishmi Gunasingam, Medical Training andAdministration Unit, RoyalPrince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050 Time period: 2011
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 allocated a unique identifying number to maintain anonymity. A computer generated randomisation code"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "allocated participants to the debriefing intervention or control group." 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	Low risk	No loss to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or no study protocol reported, nor did we find one online
Other bias	Unclear risk	Difficult to assess compliance rate ‐> Attendance at the debriefing sessions was not always 100%, leading to the potential argument that those who were regularly in attendance were experiencing more or less stress.