| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT, Turkey |
| Participants |
Quote: "All of the nurses (n = 227) were invited to complete the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) developed by Maslach & Jackson (1981). Those who completed the questionnaire and received a score on emotional exhaustion higher than the median score for all nurses were invited to participate in the burnout reduction intervention." (p. 487) 108 nurses were randomised to one of three conditions. |
| Interventions |
1) Coping training (N = 36) Quote: "The group that received coping training consisted of two groups, each group consisting of 18 people. In the first week, the concept of stress was explained to the nurses, and coping methods used by the nurses in stressful conditions were discussed. In the second session, basic communication skills on the stress level were discussed. In the third session, cognitive coping methods were presented theoretically. In the fourth session, cognitive distortions found among nurses and methods for coping with these distortions were discussed. In the fifth session, the problem‐solving method was theoretically explained to the nurses. In the sixth session, stressful situations that the nurses encountered were discussed and resolved by means of the problem‐solving method. In the seventh session, problems that the nurses had difficulty coping with were discussed by utilizing the skills learnt during the course of the programme." (p. 488) 2) Support group (N = 36) "...the support group consisted of three groups, each group consisting of 12 people. The nurses talked about the most frequently encountered stressors in the workplace and expressed their feelings towards their jobs. At the beginning of each session, the nurses expressed their feelings related to difficult situations at the workplace. Then, a problem chosen by the nurses was attempted to be solved by using reflective cycle steps. Researchers provided information when needed. Possible solution methods were discussed in the groups, and the nurses were advised to use these methods in their daily lives. The nurses shared their difficult and favourable times and also exchanged recommendations with each other." (p. 488) 3) Control: No intervention (N = 36) |
| Outcomes |
MBI |
| Identification |
|
| Notes |
MBI‐EE included in analysis 1.1 and 1.2. Intervention groups combined to create a single pair‐wise comparison. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
"Random allocation was concealed by using a system of sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes containing the computer‐generated random allocation, which had been drawn up by a statistician. During the randomization, the researchers and the participants did not know the groups to which they would be allocated." (p. 487) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
See above |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
"No blinding was applied to the participants and the researchers." (p. 487) |
| 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 |
"Intention‐to‐treat analysis was used because of sample loss." (p. 487) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
The authors only measured and adequately reported results of the MBI. |
| Other bias |
Unclear risk |
We did not find any indications of other sources of bias. |
