| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT, USA |
| Participants |
58 staff members (64% nurses, 12% physicians and 24% other) of a large hospital |
| Interventions |
1) Experimental: Eight‐Point Program Spiritual Skills Training: 8 weekly 2‐hour training sessions about meditation skills (passage meditation, mantram repetition, slowing down, focused attention, training the senses, putting others first, spiritual association and inspirational reading).
2) Control: no intervention |
| Outcomes |
Perceived Stress Scale, MBI, Medical Outcomes Study |
| Identification |
|
| Notes |
Included in analysis 2.2 |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Details of randomisation were provided in a separate supplement to the article: "While participants were completing pretests, individuals were randomly assigned to treatment (n = 30) or wait‐list control (n = 31). Computer pre‐generated 1:1 random assignment tables had been prepared by the lead investigator for each potential number of registering participants, up to 60, for each session (precise number of registrants could not be anticipated). At each session, as participants completed pretests, their consent forms were rapidly assembled in an arbitrary order and given sequential numbers by the lead investigator or the main instructor. The total number of received consent forms dictated the appropriate random assignment table, which dictated how to separate the numbered consent forms into two groups." (p. S4) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
"Immediately following pretest, participants were informed of their group assignment. One or two weeks later, those in the treatment condition began the eight‐week training, meeting together in one large group." (p. S4) |
| 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 |
"Selected characteristics of the 58 final participants included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis are displayed in Table 1" (p. 715) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
All outcomes reported. |
| Other bias |
Unclear risk |
We did not find any indications of other sources of bias. |
