Schroeder 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Mindful Medicine Curriculum (MMC) Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 17 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (waitlist) Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 16 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age (mean ± SD): 42.8 ± 8.4 Sex (N (% female)): 24 (73%) Sample size: 33 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 13.3 ± 8.1 Included criteria: inclusion criteria were (a) employed as a primary care physician by Providence Medical Group (PMG), (b) working at least 30% time in direct patient care, (c) aged between 25 and 75 years, (d) willing to be randomised to the intervention or wait list control group, and (e) no prior participation in the same MBI offered at PMG. Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: there were no significant differences between the intervention (n = 17) and wait list control (n = 16) group on any demographic variables (all P > 0.05). Compliance rate: 1/15 (6.7%) did not receive the intervention Response rate: NR Type of healthcare worker: exclusively primary care physicians
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindful Medicine Curriculum (MMC) Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Key to the MMC is an introduction to mindfulness that is relevant to the professional contexts in which physicians work, hence emphasising the physicians’ ability to incorporate mindfulness and compassion into interpersonal relationships. Instructors present the MMC using secular, accessible language, and they have extensive experience in secular MBIs and familiarity with the culture of physicians. The number of sessions: 4 Duration of each session on average: MMC is a 13‐hourweekend training program plus 2‐hour follow‐up sessions scheduled at 2 and 4 weeks after the weekend. Duration of the entire intervention: 4 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: Group Control (waitlist) 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 Scale Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional Exhaustion Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment (lack of) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Country: USA Setting: family medicine and internal medicine departments Comments: NA Authors name: David A. Schroeder Institution: Providence Heart Clinic, Portland, OR (DAS); Endocrinology–Medical Education, Providence Medical Center, Portland, OR (ES); Department of Internal Medicine, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Email: mchristopher@pacificu.edu. Address: Michael S. Christopher, PhD, School of Professional Psychology, Pacific University, 190 SE 8th Avenue, Suite 260, Hillsboro, OR 97123; e‐mail: mchristopher@pacificu.edu Time period: December 2014 and May 2015
Notes	PSS included in analysis 1.1.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "After completing the baseline measures, participants were randomized 1:1 into the intervention or a waitlist control." Sequence generation process insufficiently described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "After completing the baseline measures, participants were randomized 1:1 into the intervention or a waitlist control." Difficult to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possibly foresee assignment
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	4 of the 33 (12%) randomised participants included in the analyses. Not reported whether loss to follow‐up was at random. However loss to follow‐up is below our pre‐defined cut‐off point.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Trial Registration Not applicable, because this article does not contain any clinical trials." No trial registration or no study protocol reported. No indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Quote: "Potential participants were recruited via email for 3 weeks prior to the first MBI group (January 2015). Participants responded to the recruitment email by directing their browser to the study website, which was housed on Qualtrics, a secure web‐based survey system." Not able to assess response rate.