Mache 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Self‐care health intervention programme Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 27 (72%) Sample size: 37 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (no intervention) Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 24 (69%) Sample size: 35 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): 33 ± 2.3 Sex (N (% female)): 51 (71%) Sample size: 72 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: study participation requires positive inclusion criteria: (1) employment as a psychiatrist in a psychiatric department, (2) working full time, (3) being able and willing to take part in the study, (4) agreement to complete a survey at least three times. Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: only small, insignificant differences between intervention and control group have been found in baseline data on gender, age and working experience. Statistically significant positive advance was found for perceived stress, resilience and self‐efficacy in the intervention group. Type of healthcare worker: exclusively physicians Response rate: 51% Compliance rate: 95%
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Self‐care health intervention programme Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The focus was on actual working situations and problems, coping strategies and support between colleagues and future goals. The training sessions included psycho‐education (theoretical input, watching videos, oral group discussions, self‐awareness with experimental exercises and home assignments). The number of sessions: 12 Duration of each session on average: 1.5 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 12 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: long Intervention deliverer: Two psychotherapists performed the self‐care training. Both psychotherapists are registered and accredited as psychotherapists and clinical supervisors. They had qualifications in cognitive behavioural therapy, systemic therapy and solution‐focused brief therapy in individual and group settings. Intervention form: The intervention was performed off duty. Group and individual, face‐to‐face and at home. 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	Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Germany Setting: Twelve hospital departments in the North of Germany specialising in Psychiatry Medicine Comments: NR Authors name: Stefanie Mache Institution: Institute for Occupational and Maritime Medicine (ZfAM), University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf Email: s.mache@uke.de Address: Seewartenstrasse 10, 20459 Hamburg, Germany Time period: NR
Notes	PSQ included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "study. These physicians were randomised into two groups through a computer‐generated algorithm."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The surveys were conducted by using a secure web‐based survey sys tem, via links within e‐mail messages."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants 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	Quote: "76 participants; four needed to be excluded due to health reasons (sickness absence)." Loss to follow‐up below our review's pre‐defined cut‐off value.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration, nor did we find one online.
Other bias	Low risk	No indication of other bias.