| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT, Sweden |
| Participants |
131 healthcare workers who scored above the 75th percentile on the exhaustion dimension of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory |
| Interventions |
1) Experimental: reflecting peer‐support group: Ten 2‐hour weekly sessions where participants discussed and reflected with colleagues about work‐related stress and burnout, provided mutual support for each other, compared experiences and set individual goals to find out alternative ways to handle perceived stressful situations. The sessions started with a short 10‐minute guided relaxation.
2) Control: no intervention |
| Outcomes |
The General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work (QPS Nordic), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, The Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) |
| Identification |
|
| Notes |
OBI included in analysis 3.2 and the HADS in analysis 3.4 |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Quote: "The randomization procedure was performed by a statistician using the Statistical Analysis Software, version 8.2." (p. 508) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| 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 |
High risk |
Altogether 27% of participants dropped out during follow‐up and the reasons for the control group participants leaving were not known |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
All outcomes reported. |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
We did not find any indications of other sources of bias. |
