Anderson 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: Canada Setting: online, self‐guided intervention Age: mean = 25.5 years Sample size (randomised): 138 Sex: 50 women, 88 men Comorbidity (mean (SD) of respective measures in indicated, if available) at baseline: not specified Population description: primary care paramedic (PCP) student volunteers Inclusion criteria: not specified Exclusion criteria: not specified Attrition (withdrawals and exclusions): not specified Reasons for missing data: not specified
Interventions	Intervention: self‐paced online resiliency training programme (n = 81) delivery: online (blended) providers: self‐guided duration of treatment period and timing: self‐paced training of 6 ‐ 8 hours over 2 weeks description: LEARNING OBJECTIVES: defining resilience, identifying the emotional and physical risks of paramedicine work, recognising symptoms of stress, post‐traumatic stress disorder and vicarious trauma, and building resilience skills through understanding and applying techniques to manage self‐talk, feelings, and behaviour OUTLINE: 1) topic: The Stress Story; material covered: physiology of stress; mind/body connection 2) topic: When is stress really trauma?; material covered: defining trauma; the faces of trauma; the culture of trauma 3) topic: benefits and risks of being a paramedic; material covered: describe workplace benefits and risks; defining vicarious traumatisation 4) topic: balancing risk and benefits with resiliency; material covered: defining resiliency 5) topic: managing stress: How do I do?; material covered: self‐awareness and triggers; support systems; coping strategies 6) topic: building resiliency; material covered: putting the pieces together; maintaining life balance; help‐seeking behaviours compliance: not specified integrity of delivery: not specified economic information: not specified theoretical basis: not specified Control: not specified (n = 57)
Outcomes	Outcomes collected and reported: resilience ‐ Resilience Scale (RS) resilience, self‐reliance ‐ RS resilience, meaningfulness ‐ RS resilience, equanimity ‐ RS resilience, perseverance ‐ RS resilience, existential aloneness ‐ RS Time points measured and reported: 1) pre‐intervention (prior to practicum experience and resiliency training); 2) post‐intervention (after resiliency training and following completion of practice experience) Adverse events: not specified
Notes	Contact with authors: We contacted the authors to get the information about any missing data (withdrawals/exclusions) in the study, the number of participants analysed in each group and the SDs for the outcomes reported in Table II. We received no response to 2 inquiries. Study start/end date: not specified Funding source: partially funded by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Campus Capacity Development Grant, and partially by the Justice Institute of British Columbia Declaration of interest: The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest Ethical approval needed/obtained for study: not specified Comments by study authors: not relevant Miscellaneous outcomes by the review authors: not relevant Correspondence: Gregory S. Anderson; Office of Applied Research and Graduate Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC), 715 McBride Blvd., New Westminster, BC V3L 5T4, Canada; aganderson@jibc.ca
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Using a randomized control trial, cohorts of students were randomly assigned to either the experimental (with the online course as an intervention) or control group. Two cohorts were randomly assigned to receive the online course intervention designed to build capacity for resilient behaviour, while two cohorts acted as the control group." Quote: "Baseline demographic results were examined using bivariate comparisons between the control and experimental, and all were found to be statistically insignificant at p < 0.05 which suggests that there were no differences between the two groups on the pre‐test demographic variables." Quote: "Prior to the intervention there were no significant differences in total resilience or any of the sub‐scales (self‐ reliance, meaningfulness, equanimity, perseverance, and existential aloneness)." Judgement comment: insufficient information about random‐sequence generation to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’; verified baseline comparability of groups for sociodemographic characteristics and outcome variables on the basis of 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	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about blinding of participants and personnel to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’ (online self‐guided intervention)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about blinding of outcome assessment to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’
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 and if missing data were imputed, for example; number of participants analysed in each group not stated)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Judgement comment: no study protocol or trial registration available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified