Kelleher 2018.

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 in conference abstract Imputation of missing data: not specified
Participants	Country: USASetting: not specifiedAge: not specifiedSample size (randomised): not specifiedSex: not specifiedComorbidity (mean (SD) of respective measures in indicated, if available) at baseline: not specified Population description: first semester baccalaureate nursing students (BSNs) Method of recruitment: recruited from first semester BSNs in Fall 2012; RCT repeated for Spring 2013 first semester BSNs Inclusion criteria: not specified Exclusion criteria: not specified Attrition (withdrawals and exclusions): not specified Reasons for missing data: not specified
Interventions	Intervention: Brief MBSR programme (n randomised not specified) delivery: face‐to‐face group setting (classes) providers: not specified in conference abstract duration of treatment period and timing: 4 weekly 1‐hour sessions + 10 minutes daily practice description: not specified compliance: not specified integrity of delivery: not specified economic information: not specified theoretical basis: MBSR Control: wait‐list control (n randomised not specified) description: receive 4h‐MBSR workshop at beginning of their 2nd semester
Outcomes	Outcomes collected and reported: stress ‐ scale not specified resilience ‐ scale not specified mindfulness ‐ scale not specified grade point average ‐ scale not specified Time points measured and reported: 1) pre‐intervention; 2) post‐intervention (at 4 weeks); 3) 1‐month follow‐up (at 8 weeks; i.e. 4 weeks post‐intervention); all time points reported except for 1) pre‐intervention Adverse events: not specified
Notes	Contact with authors: We contacted the authors to see if the study was already published (Kelleher 2019 [pers comm]).Study start/end date: not specified Funding source: not specified Declaration of interest: not specifiedEthical approval needed/obtained for study: not specifiedComments by study authors: not relevantMiscellaneous outcomes by the review authors: information received from authors: results have not been published yet; quantitative data was not available from the study authors Correspondence: Catherine Kelleher; University of Maryland, School of Nursing; kelleher@umaryland.edu
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote (see conference abstract): "A randomized intervention pilot evaluated impact of a brief MBSR program for Fall 2012 first semester baccalaureate students in nursing (BSNs) and was repeated for Spring 2013 first semester BSNs." Judgement comment: based on conference abstract, insufficient information about random‐sequence generation to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'; for baseline comparability, no judgement possible based on conference abstract
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: based on conference abstract, insufficient information about allocation concealment to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	Judgement comment: blinding of participants and personnel probably not done (face‐to‐face intervention), but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
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) Objective outcomes	Low risk	Judgement comment: based on conference abstract, insufficient information about blinding of outcome assessment (electronic surveys), but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: based on conference abstract, insufficient information about blinding of outcome assessment; but 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: no judgement possible based on conference abstract
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: no judgement possible based on conference abstract