McConachie 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Acceptance and mindfulness workshop Age in years (median / range): 43 / 19‐69 Sex (N (% female)): 47 (71%) Sample size: 66 Years of experience (median / range): 6.5 / 0.5‐25 Control (wait list) Age in years (median / range): 44 / 22‐64 Sex (N (% female)): 42 (78%) Sample size: 54 Years of experience (median / range): 6.4 / 0.9‐30 Overall Age in years (median / range): 43 / 19‐69 Sex (N (% female)): 89 (74%) Sample size: 120 Years of experience (median / range): 6.4 / 0.5‐30 Included criteria: inclusion criteria were that participants were over 18 years, able to provide informed consent, and had at least six months experience of working within ID services. Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups in relation to age, experience of working in ID services, hours worked per week, gender, professional qualifications or education. Type of healthcare worker: Support staff involved in the direct care of individuals with ID. Response rate: 100% Compliance rate: 85%
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Acceptance and mindfulness workshop Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The overall aim of the workshop was to change the way support staff reacted to stressful situations, such as supporting a client with ID and who displayed behaviour that challenges. The workshop involved the use of didactic teaching, group discussions, written exercises, the use of metaphors, short video presentations and practical and interactive exercises– all of which aimed to illustrate the key components of the intervention. Mindfulness exercises were practised during sessions, and given as homework assignments to be completed between sessions. The number of sessions: 2 Duration of each session on average: full day and half day Duration of the entire intervention: 6 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long : short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: In‐person group sessions and homework assignments Control (wait list) 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	Staff Stressor Questionnaire (SSQ) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome General Health Questionnaire (GHQ‐12) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: NR Setting: Independent care organisations working with individuals with ID Comments: NR Authors name: Douglas AlexanderJames McConachie Institution: University of Edinburgh, Department of Clinical Psychology, School of Health in Social Science Email: Douglas.mcconachie@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk Address: University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9AG, UK Time period: NR
Notes	GHQ included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Permuted block randomisation was used to generate quasi‐random numbers (www.jerrydallal.com/random/ random_block_size.htm) to allocate the 120 participants to the intervention or control conditions (see Fig. 1)."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "there was no allocation concealment, and the allocation of staff to the two conditions was not fully adhered to by line managers."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "The latter factor is a particular source of potential bias, as the reason the participants changed conditions is unknown. They may have either been particularly motivated to attend the workshop, or the line manager may have been keen for them to attend or not attend."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "There were similar levels of attrition from both the intervention and control group (see Fig. 1). The data was found to be missing completely at random (MCAR) (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010) considering all cases and outcome measures MCAR (P > 0.05) (X 2 = 30.686, df = 27, p = .284). The" 27.5 % lost to follow‐up ‐> MCAR
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No trial registration, no indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Low risk	No indication of other bias.