Khoshnazary 2016.

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: no imputation of missing data; per‐protocol analysis (i.e. only participants who completed the study, excluding the 3 withdrawals in the IG)
Participants	Country: Iran Setting: nurses in a psychiatric department; training setting not specified (probably at home, in part, due to written training) Age: range = 24 ‐ 55 years Sample size (randomised): 76 Sex: 51 women, 22 men (after 3 withdrawals) Comorbidity (mean (SD) of respective measures in indicated, if available) at baseline: not specified Population description: nurses in psychiatric department Inclusion criteria: 1) providing consent to take part in the study; 2) having a bachelor’s degree or higher; 3) working morning, evening or night shifts at Roozbeh Psychiatric Hospital; 4) having at least 1 year's experience at Roozbeh Psychiatric Center; 5) no emotional‐intelligence training experience Exclusion criteria: 1) failure to participate or to participate appropriately in emotional intelligence training; 2) boredom or illness that prevented participation or continued collaboration at the time of the study; 3) moving to another centre; 4) incomplete completion of questionnaire or failure to return the questionnaire during the procedure; 5) psychosocial problems; 6) use of drugs Attrition (withdrawals and exclusions): 3 withdrawals in IG Reasons for missing data: not specified
Interventions	Intervention: emotional intelligence (EI) training (n = 38) delivery: combination: face‐to‐face, probably group setting (workshop) + written training (educational pamphlets) providers: not specified for workshop duration of treatment period and timing: 1‐day workshop of 7 hours + written training for 6 weeks with educational pamphlets description: 1‐DAY WORKSHOP: familiarising with history, defining emotional intelligence and how to apply it in the workplace, family environment and relations to people around workshop teaches 3 skills out of 15 emotional intelligence‐enhancing skills 6‐WEEK WRITTEN TRAINING to follow internalisation of skills through educational pamphlets about Bar‐On emotional intelligence skills each week: follow‐up of 2 of the 15 EI skills (problem‐solving, happiness, optimism, stress tolerance, impulse control, flexibility, realism/reality testing, independence, empathy, interpersonal relationships, social responsibility, emotional self‐awareness, self‐esteem/assertiveness, self‐healing/self‐actualisation, self‐expression/self‐regard) are given along with exercises to develop and reinforce these skills compliance: n = 3/38 withdrawals integrity of delivery: not specified economic information: not specified theoretical basis: not specified Control: not specified (n = 38) description: In case of effective training, all training content should be presented to CG in 1 CD.
Outcomes	Outcomes collected and reported: emotional intelligence ‐ BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory resilience ‐ CD‐RISC Time points measured and reported: 1) pre‐intervention; 2) post‐intervention Adverse events: not specified
Notes	Contact with authors: no correspondence required Study start/end date: not exactly specified; recruitment in 2014 Funding source: not specified Declaration of interest: not specified Ethical approval needed/obtained for study: approved by Ethics Committee of University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (code: 8.4931.IR.USWR.REC) Comments by study authors: article is the result of a Master's Degree in Nursing at the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences Miscellaneous outcomes by the review authors: article in Persian (translated) Correspondence: S. Khoshnazary; corresponding author: M. A. Hosseini, PhD, Associate Professor, Nursing Department, University of Social Welfare & Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran; mahmaimy2020@gmail.com
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The people divided two groups. Intervention and control groups in sample random method." Quote: "Results showed that no different between two group of intervention and control about demographic characteristics." Quote: "‫مرتبط‬ ‫اصلی‬ ‫های‬ ‫یافته‬ ‫در‬ <b>329/72 ± 29/91 ‫مداخله‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫در‬ ‫مداخله‬ ‫از‬ ‫قبل‬ ‫هیجانی‬ ‫هوش‬ ‫اختالف‬ ‫آماري‬ ‫نظر‬ ‫از‬ ‫که‬ ‫بود‬ 326/73 ± 36/55 ‫کنترل‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫در‬ ‫و‬ ‫اجرای‬ ‫از‬ ‫بعد‬ .)p=0/501( ‫نداشت‬ ‫وجود‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫دو‬ ‫بین‬ ‫معناداري‬‬" [In the main findings related to the purpose of the study, the mean score of emotional intelligence before intervention in the intervention group was 329.72 (29.91) and in the control group was 326.73 (36.55) which was not statistically significant (p = .501).] Quote: "‫داشت‬ ‫وجود‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫دو‬ ‫بین‬ <b>‫مداخله‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫در‬ ‫مداخله‬ ‫از‬ ‫قبل‬ ‫آوری‬ ‫تاب‬ ‫نمره‬ ‫میانگین‬ ‫که‬ ‫بود‬ 57/70 ± 15/14 ‫شاهد‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫در‬ ‫و‬ 61/71 ± 12/47 ‫نداشت‬ ‫وجود‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫دو‬ ‫بین‬ ‫معناداري‬ ‫اختالف‬ ‫آماري‬ ‫نظر‬ ‫از‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫در‬ ‫آوری‬ ‫تاب‬ ‫نمره‬ ‫میانگین‬ ‫مداخله‬ ‫اجرای‬ ‫از‬ ‫بعد‬ .)p=0/098(</b> 58/92 ± 13/71 ‫به‬ ‫کنترل‬" [The mean pre‐intervention resiliency score in the intervention group was 61.71 (12.47) and in the control group was 57.70 (15.14) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.098).] Quote: "‫می‬ ‫زیر‬ ‫شرح‬ ‫به‬ ،‫پژوهش‬ <b>:‫شامل‬ ‫شناختی‬ ‫جمعیت‬ ‫متغیرهای‬ ‫داد‬ ‫نشان‬ ‫مطالعه‬ ‫نتایج‬ ‫میزان‬ ،)p=0/408( ‫تاهل‬ ،)p=0/118( ‫سن‬ ،)p=0/08( ‫جنس‬ ‫سازمانی‬ ‫پست‬ ،)p=0/501( ‫کاری‬ ‫سابقه‬ ،)p=0/369( ‫تحصیالت‬ ،)p=0/09( ‫کاری‬ ‫اضافه‬ ،)p=0/82( ‫استخدامی‬ ‫وضعیت‬ ،)p=0/25( ‫دو‬ ‫در‬ ،)p=0/194( ‫دیگر‬ ‫محلی‬ ‫در‬ ‫اشتغال‬ ،)p=0/77( ‫کاری‬ ‫شیفت‬</b> ‫نداشته‬ ‫وجود‬ ‫گروه‬ ‫دو‬ ‫بین‬" [The results showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in demographic variables including sex (p = 0.08), age (p = 0.188), marital status (p = 0.408), educational level (p = 0.369), work experience (p = 0.501), organizational position (p = 0.25), employment status (p = 0.82), overtime (p = 0.09), shift work (p = 0.77) and other employment (p = 0.194).] Judgement comment: insufficient information about random sequence generation to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’; RCT and verified baseline comparability of groups for sociodemographic characteristics and outcomes of interest 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	High risk	Judgement comment: control group not further specified; blinding of participants and participants probably not done (face‐to‐face intervention) and the outcome is likely to be influenced by the 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	Low risk	Quote: "3 ‫دوره‬ 33 ‫ها‬ ‫یافته‬ <b>‫گروه‬ ‫از‬ ‫نفر‬ ‫سه‬ ‫که‬ ‫داشتند‬ ‫شرکت‬ ‫نفر‬ 76 ‫پژوهش‬ ‫این‬ ‫در‬ 73 ‫نهایت‬ ‫در‬ ‫و‬ ‫دادند‬ ‫انصراف‬ ‫پژوهش‬ ‫در‬ ‫مشارکت‬ ‫ادامه‬ ‫از‬ ‫مداخله‬ ‫بودن‬ ‫همسان‬ ‫بخش‬ ‫دو‬ ‫در‬ ،‫تحقیق‬ ‫این‬ ‫هاي‬ ‫یافته‬.‫ماندند‬ ‫باقی‬ ‫نفر‬</b> ‫فرضیه‬ ‫محوریت‬ ‫با‬ ‫اصلی‬ ‫هاي‬" [The study involved 76 people, with three of the intervention group withdrawing from participation in the study, and 73 remained.] Judgement comment: reasons for missing data likely to be related to true outcome with slight imbalance in missing data between groups (IG: n = 3 withdrawals; CG: n = 0); no reasons specified; per‐protocol analysis (i.e. only participants who completed trial, without n = 3 withdrawals in IG)
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