McGonagle 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Positive psychology‐based coaching intervention Age in years (mean ± SD): 43.41 (8.76) Sex (N (% female)): 21 (72.41%) Sample size: 29 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 12.12 (7.40) Control (wait list) Age in years (mean ± SD): 41.83 (7.42) Sex (N (% female)): 25 (86.21%) Sample size: 29 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 10.05 (7.47) Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 46 (79.31%) Sample size : 58 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: inclusion criteria were currently working at least part‐time as a PCP (0.5 FTE clinical practice), having 25 years or less of experience as a PCP, and not planning to retire within two years. Excluded criteria: potential participants were screened for psychological distress using the SCL‐10 (Nguyen et al.,1983). We used the cut‐off score determined by Müller et al. (2010) of 4.0 to indicate those with high levels of psychological distress and a licenced mental health professional was retained to speak with those who reported a level of distress ≥ 4.0. All participants attained scores < 4.0 Pretreatment: no demographic variables were significantly different between the primary and wait‐listed groups. Type of healthcare worker: exclusively Primary Care Physician Response rate: 100% Compliance rate: 97%
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Positive psychology‐based coaching intervention Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Prior to the first coaching session, participants completed the Workplace PERMA Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016) which measures the five pillars of PERMA and workplace well‐being. The individual’s PERMA results were shared by the coach at the first session as a standardised focus for that first conversation. The last coaching session focused on assessing progress, defining ways to sustain success, and conducting a gratitude reflection. The second of the fifth sessions utilised participant‐chosen topics and a toolbox of evidence‐based positive psychology coaching exercises, designed to be used flexibly based on client goals and learning preferences. The number of sessions: 6 Duration of each session on average: 30 minutes Duration of the entire intervention: 12 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: long Intervention deliverer: While the five study coaches differed in terms of specific degrees and certifications attained, all agreed on the coaching format, philosophy, and tools used in this study. Coaches had between 11 and 25 years of professional coaching experience, and all previously coached healthcare personnel. All held post‐graduate degrees, including a doctorate in organisational behaviour and master’s degrees in health psychology, human resource management, mental health counselling, anthropology, adult and organisational learning, and health education. Intervention form: The first session was conducted face to face and the remainder were conducted by phone 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	Stress in General Scale Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Notes: (Stanton et al., 2001) Maslach Burnout Index Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Notes: (Maslach et al.,1996)
Identification	Sponsorship source: This project was supported by the Institute of Coaching at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School affiliate. Country: United States Setting: Four medical practices in a large city (both community and hospital‐based settings). Comments: NR Authors name: Alyssa McGonagle Institution: University of North Carolina at Charlotte Email: amcgonag@uncc.edu Address: 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223‐0001 Time period: NR
Notes	MBI ‐ one combined scale included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "and received a participant code. Eligible participants then completed an initial survey assessing all outcome measures, and were randomized using a coin flip into either an immediate start coaching group (primary) or wait‐listed control group with a six‐month delay.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not mentioned.
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)	Low risk	No trial registration, no indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: The authors combined the MBI into one scale, which is not according to the MBI handbook.