Summary of findings 1. Workplace intervention compared to no intervention to support mental health and resilience of health and social care professionals during a disease outbreak.

Workplace intervention compared to no intervention to support mental health and resilience of health and social care professionals during a disease outbreak
Patient or population: health and social professionals Settings: any setting in which there is a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic Intervention: workplace intervention Comparison: no treatment
Outcomes	Impact	No of Participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)
General mental health (critical outcome)	‐	No studies	Insufficient evidence
Resilience (critical outcome)	‐	No studies	Insufficient evidence
Psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress	‐	No studies	Insufficient evidence
Burnout (10 questions from ProQOL scale; assessed immediately post‐intervention and at 6‐month follow‐up)	It is uncertain whether workplace interventions improve burnout as the certainty of the evidence is very low	408 (1 study)a	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c,d
Effects on workplace staffing ‐ absenteeism	‐	No studies	Insufficient evidence
ProQOL: Professional Quality of Life
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^aStudy is De Jong 2019. The workplace intervention comprised training for frontline workers in how to deliver psychological first aid to people affected by the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone.
^bDowngraded by one level due to serious imprecision, as evidence was available from one study only.
^cDowngraded by one level due to high risk of bias due to the analysis not accounting for the cluster randomisation, high risk of incomplete outcome bias with dropouts potentially affected by geographical factors, and lack of blinding and no attention control intervention.
^dDowngraded by one level due to serious indirectness as we had concerns regarding the validity of use of the ProQOL scale.