Waddell 2005.

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: baccalaureate nursing program in an urban university Age: range = 20‐40 years Sample size (randomised): 25 Sex: not specified for total sample Comorbidity (mean (SD) of respective measures in indicated, if available) at baseline: not specified Population description: students from the second and third years of a basic baccalaureate nursing program Inclusion criteria: not specified Exclusion criteria: not specified Attrition (withdrawals and exclusions): after phase 1: n = 5 dropouts (IG: 4/14 (28.6%); CG: 1/11 (9.1%)) Reasons for missing data: academic and family life demands (n = 5)
Interventions	Intervention: career planning and development programme (n = 14) delivery: phase 1: face‐to‐face; group sessions (workshop) + career planning and development book in addition to student career planning and development workbook folder; phase 2: face‐to‐face group sessions; individual career coaching is offered providers: not specified duration of treatment period and timing: phase 1: single 3‐hour workshop; phase 2: 2 3‐hour working sessions and individual coaching offered description: phase 1: introduction to Donner and Wheeler’s career planning and development model, which was adapted for use with nursing students PHASE: SCANNING YOUR ENVIRONMENT: foundation of career‐planning process; activity to become better informed and see the world through differing perspectives; taking stock of the world in which you live; understanding current realities in your country, health care system, and work environment as well as future trends at global, national, and local levels within and outside of health care and the nursing profession PHASE: SELF‐ASSESSMENT AND REALITY CHECK: identifying your values, experiences knowledge, strengths and limitations; key to exploring new opportunities; together with environmental scan helps you to identify future directions; reality check allows you to seek validation of your self‐assessment and expand your view of yourself PHASE: CREATING YOUR CAREER VISION: exploring possibilities guided by your environmental scan and self‐assessment; vision of your potential future; focus on what is possible and realistic for you in both the short and long‐term; link between who you are and who you can become PHASE: STRATEGIC CAREER PLAN: formulating a blueprint for action; specifying the activities, timespan and resources you need to help you achieve your goals and career vision phase 2: career planning and development model introduced in phase 1 is explored in further depth and applied to the intervention group’s current academic setting and professional experiences; individual career coaching is offered to participants compliance: n = 4 dropouts after phase 1 (academic and family life demands) phase 2: no participants request individual career coaching during course of study after end of project: 5 of 10 participants in IG asked for and received individual coaching integrity of delivery: not specified economic information: not specified for intervention; focus group participants were paid CAD $35.00 honorarium theoretical basis: based on Career Planning and Development Model (Donner 1998) Control: no intervention (n = 11). Participants in CG offered CPD program at completion of phase 2; at that time, they also received career planning and development book with student career planning and development workbook folder compliance: n = 1 dropout after phase 1 (academic and family life demands)
Outcomes	Outcomes collected and reported: career planning activities, career vision ‐ CPAM career planning activities, self‐assessment ‐ CPAM career planning activities, scanning the environment ‐ CPAM career planning activities, strategic career planning ‐ CPAM career decision‐making, self‐efficacy ‐ Career Decision‐Making Self‐Efficacy Scale Short Form Time points measured and reported: 1) pre‐intervention (pre‐test of phase 1); 2) during intervention (within 2 weeks after intervention in phase 1); 3) during intervention (pre‐test of phase 2); and ) 1‐month follow‐up (1‐month after intervention in phase 2, i.e. 1 month after total intervention) Adverse events: not specified
Notes	Contact with authors: no correspondence required Study start/end date: phase 1: during fall 1999/2000 academic year; phase 2: 2000/2001 academic year Funding source: not exactly specified; probably also by scholarship of Gail J Donner and Mary M Wheeler (donnewheeler) Declaration of interest: not specified Ethical approval needed/obtained for study: approved by the university ethics review board at the study site Comments by authors: not relevant Miscellaneous outcomes by the review authors: not relevant Correspondence: Janice Waddell, RN, PhD; Department of Nursing, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada; jwaddell@ryerson.ca
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "All participants in Phase One were invited to continue their involvement in Phase Two, with the understanding that participants would remain in the group (intervention/control) to which they were originally randomly assigned." Quote: "The self‐selected participants from the initial randomized group were then randomly assigned to control or intervention groups." Quote: "No significant differences in career planning activities and career decision‐making were found between the control and intervention groups before the career planning and development program intervention was introduced." Judgement comment: insufficient information about random sequence generation to permit judgment of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’; verified baseline comparability of groups for outcomes of interest on the basis of analysis; baseline comparability for sociodemographic characteristics unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about allocation concealment to permit judgment 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 (large part of intervention is face‐to‐face) 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	Quote: "All participants in Phase One were invited to continue their involvement in Phase Two, with the understanding that participants would remain in the group (intervention/control) to which they were originally randomly assigned. Of the 25 original participants, 5 students dropped out of the study citing academic and family life demands. The remaining 20 participants (10 in each group) requested to continue their study involvement for the 2000/2001 academic year." Quote: "After the end of the project and the academic term, however, 5 of the 10 (3 third‐year and 2 fourth‐year students) intervention group participants" Quote: "All Phase One and Two participants completed and returned their questionnaires." Judgement comment: reasons for missing data unlikely to be related to true outcome (imbalance in missing data between groups: after phase 1: n = 5 dropouts in total; IG: n = 4; CG: n = 1; but see reasons for missing data: family and academic life demands); not clearly specified how many participants were analysed (phase 2 post‐test)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Judgement comment: no study protocol available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified