Sharif 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: cluster‐randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline Characteristics Emotional intelligence training Age in years (mean ± SD): 36.3 ± 6.7 Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 28 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 11.6 ± 6.03 Control (no intervention) Age in years (mean ± SD): 33.0 ± 6.3 Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 28 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 9.3 ± 6.2 Overall Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): NR Sample size: 56 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: NR Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: the two study arms were not significantly different in terms of age, working experience, and working hours (Table 1); the distribution of employment status, shift working, and number of night shifts per week, were also not different between the two groups (Table 2). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of emotional intelligence and mental health mean scores before the intervention (Tables 3 and 4). Compliance rate: 25 of the 28 randomised participants did not receive the intervention for being busy.  Response rate: 84 of the 140 eligible participants did not participate (60%) Type of healthcare worker: various healthcare professionals including nurses 44 (75%), head nurses 10 (17%) and supervisors 5 (9%)
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Cognitive‐behavioral therapy + relaxation Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The nurses of the intervention group were invited to take part in a training courses held in the College of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. During this two day workshop, components of emotional intelligence were taught. Of the intervention group nurses, 25 completed the training course. The course included the concept of health, self‐awareness skills, stress and its symptoms, stress management, the relationship between thoughts and emotions, emotional intelligence, management of emotions, relationship management, and self‐management.  The number of sessions: 2 Duration of each session on average: NR Duration of the entire intervention: 2 days Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: Group, face‐to‐face Control (no intervention) Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: To consider ethical issues, the nurses in the control group were provided with educational materials after completion of the study 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	28‐item Goldberg's general health questionnaires (GHQ‐20) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: The authors would like to thank the Vice‐Chancellor for Research, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, for financially supporting this study. Country: Iran Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: Farkhondeh Sharif, PhD Institution: Faculty of Nursing, Department of Mental Health Nursing, Shiraz University of Medical Science. Email: fsharif@sums.ac.ir Address: NR Time period: NR
Notes	GHQ included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Of 200 ICU nurses, 28 were working in Shahid Faghihi hospital and selected as the control group; 28 nurses who were working in Namazi hospital were allocated to the intervention group. Selection of the hospitals for the control and the intervention group was random.
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 not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	52 of the 56 randomised participants included in the analysis. Not reported whether missing was at random.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Inaccessible trial registration. No indication of selective reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Low participation rate (40%). Did not incorporate unit of analysis error.