Akbari 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group Unit of randomisation: individuals Power (power sample size calculation, level of power achieved): not specified Imputation of missing data: not specified
Participants	Country: Iran Setting: university Age: mean = 21.58 (SD = 5.12); range = 18 ‐ 27 years Sample size (randomised): 30 Sex: 18 women, 12 men Comorbidity (mean (SD) of respective measures in indicated, if available): not specified Population description: nursing and midwifery students Inclusion criteria: 1) willingness to participate in the study; 2) no history of mental illnesses; 3) low happiness score; 4) high aggression score Exclusion criteria: 1) unwillingness to participate in the study; 2) diagnosed psychological disorders; 3) use of psychotropic medications and sedatives Attrition (withdrawals and exclusions): not specified Reasons for missing data: not specified
Interventions	Intervention: resilience training (n = 15) delivery: face‐to‐face; group sessions providers: consultant duration of treatment period and timing: 12 75‐minute sessions description: SESSION 1: introducing resilience and session rules to the audience; target: participants introduce themselves and know the host, they form friendly relationships; a simple definition of resilience is provided; the relationship between mental health and resilience is expressed SESSION 2: awareness of capabilities; target: participants provide a clear definition of self‐consciousness; express the main elements of self‐consciousness; recognise their strengths and weaknesses; become self‐conscious about their goals, finally achieve self‐confidence SESSION 3: improving self‐esteem; target: participants gain a clear understanding of self‐esteem and identify factors contributing to its strengthening; identify their weaknesses and remove one of them; strengthen the self‐esteem of others SESSION 4: effective communication; target: participants express a clear definition of communication; are able to properly communicate with those around them; realise the importance of communication in their lives SESSION 5: establishing social relationships; target: participants provide a clear definition of the concept of friendship; recognise the characteristics of a good friend and apply them in making friends; are able to discern good friends from bad friends; express disadvantages of companionship with bad friends SESSION 6: setting goals and achieving them; target: participants differentiate short‐term goals; gain confidence in using their own abilities; are able to plan for reaching their goal SESSION 7: decision making; target: participants name the correct criteria of a good decision; explain its the importance and value; anticipate the consequences of decisions SESSION 8: problem solving; target: participants explain the process of solving a problem; learn to think about a problem; are able to offer solutions for their problems; achieve self‐efficacy for solving their problems SESSION 9: responsibility; target: participants provide a simple definition of responsibility; take responsibility for little issues in life; easily express the characteristics of a responsible person SESSION 10: anger and anxiety management; target: participants simply express the concepts of stress, anger, and anxiety and indicate their symptoms and consequences; learn stress management techniques and are able to teach them to others SESSION 11: fostering a sense of spirituality; target: participants are able to use their sense of spirituality as a motivational factor; are optimistic and hopeful about future; believe in their uniqueness SESSION 12: knowledge of adolescence; target: participants express adolescence features; name changes during adolescence; express adolescence diseases; name risk factors and protective factors of this period each session consists of: (1) checking homework from the previous session; (2) direct instruction by lecturing; (3) group discussions; (4) intellectual challenge; and (5) wrap‐up compliance: not specified integrity of delivery: not specified economic information: not specified theoretical basis: adopted from a program by Henderson, Milstein, and Krovetz in 1997 to create safe schools in the USA; no theoretical foundation specified Control: no intervention (n = 15)
Outcomes	Outcomes collected and reported: happiness ‐ Oxford Happiness Questionnaire aggression ‐ Buss and Perry Aggression Scale Time points measured and reported: 1) pre‐intervention; 2) post‐intervention; only 2) post‐intervention reported Adverse events: not specified
Notes	Contact with authors: We contacted the study authors to get the information about potential attrition and missing data in the study, the pre‐test means and SDs for both outcomes. We also inquired whether the means reported for happiness in Table 2 for the 2 groups were correct (lower score in IG compared to CG, but in the text the authors reported an increase of happiness through resilience training). We received no response to 2 inquiries. Study start/end date: not specified; study conducted during academic years 2013 ‐ 2014 Funding source: Islamic Azad University of Rasht Branch (see trial registration) Declaration of interest: not specified Ethical approval needed/obtained for study: approved by the Islamic Azad University (51172910725013) Comments by study authors: paper obtained from a research project approved by the Islamic Azad University of Rasht Branch; registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT2016112231016N1) Miscellaneous outcomes by the review authors: not relevant Correspondence: Bahman Akbari; Department of Psychology, Rasht branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran; Bakbari44@yahoo.com
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Then they were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups (15 per group)." Judgement comment: insufficient information about random‐sequence generation to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’; no information about comparability of groups at baseline or respective analysis
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about allocation concealment to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: blinding of participants and personnel probably not done (face‐to‐face intervention) and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about blinding of outcome assessment; however, due to potential performance bias (no blinding of participants), the review authors judge that the participants' responses to questionnaires may be affected by the lack of blinding (i.e. knowledge and beliefs about intervention they received)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’ (e.g. unclear if there were any missing data in the 2 groups; unclear how many participants were analysed)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Judgement comment: trial registration (IRCT2016112231016N1) available and all of the study’s prespecified outcomes have been reported but only post‐intervention assessment is reported and time effect is not considered in MANCOVA