Ho 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Mindful‐Compassion Art‐based Therapy (MCAT) Age (mean ± SD): 44 ± 11.5 Sex (N (% female)): 22 (76%) Sample size: 29 Years of experience range (N (%)) 1‐5 years, 6‐10 years, 10 years or above: 20 (69%), 7 (24%), 2 (7%) Waitlist‐control Age (mean ± SD): 45 ± 10.4 Sex (N (% female)): 20 (74%) Sample size: 27 Years of experience range (N (%)) 1‐5 years, 6‐10 years, 10 years or above: 19 (70%), 6 (22%), 2 (7%) Overall Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 56 Years of experience range (N (%)) 1‐5 years, 6‐10 years, 10 years or above: NR Included criteria: inclusion criteria included healthcare workers (i.e. physicians, nurse, medical social workers, and allied health professionals) whose primary job was caring for terminally ill patients, 21 years old and above, and fluent in both written and spoken English Excluded criteria: exclusion criteria included the inability to provide informed consent or major depression (or other mental health conditions) or both. 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: NR Response rate: NR Type of healthcare worker: physicians, nurse, medical social workers, and allied health professionals
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindful‐Compassion Art‐based Therapy (MCAT) Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Mindfulness meditation with the expressive power of art‐based therapy to support and enhance the psycho‐socio‐emotional health of healthcare worker. Each MCAT session covered a unique topic that aims to promote understanding, acceptance, and compassion for self and others to cultivate psychological resilience and shared meaning. The number of sessions: 6 Duration of each session on average: 3 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 6 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: MCAT therapists including one accredited art therapist and one clinical researcher trained in mindfulness‐based stress reduction Intervention form: Group (face‐to‐face) Waitlist‐control Type of the intervention: Waitlist 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 general survey‐ burn‐out Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout inventory general survey‐ exhaustion Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ cynicism Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ professional efficacy Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Singapore Setting: Hospice Comments: NR Authors name: Andy Hau Yan Ho Institution: Action Research for Community Health Laboratory, Psychology Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Email: andyhyho@ntu.edu.sg Address: NR Time period: NR
Notes	MBI‐EE included in analysis 2.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Simple randomization for each recruitment round was conducted by using an allocation sequence based on a computer‐generated list of random numbers. Specifically, a random number sequence ranging from 1 to 18 or 20 (depending on the number of participants recruited in each recruitment round) was generated via Research Randomizer (Urbaniak and Plous, 2019). Thereafter, each participant was randomly assigned a unique number from the sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	See above. Difficult to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possibly 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 attrition throughout the entire research period.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Trial registration NCT03440606. No indication of selective outcome reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Response rate and compliance rate not reported.