Cao 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires Country: China Study aim: "to examine COVID‐19‐related stress and its immediate psychological impact among medical workers in the fever clinic, to help improve the management of the stress of medical workers and maintain their physiological‐psychological well‐being during the pandemic" Study recruitment details: a special 24‐h 'fever clinic' was set up within the ED of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. "Doctors and nurses for this fever clinic were handpicked by the Emergency Department based on their experience and their adaptability and tenacity under pressure shown in their past works." These workers: "stay and work in the hospital continuously for 2‐3 weeks and then leave the fever clinic; they then quarantined and convalesced in a vocational resort for two weeks. During their rotation in the fever clinic, a separate apartment building with an individual dormitory in the hospital was offered to each of them" 105 medical workers were at the fever clinic during the period of the study; 102 agreed to participate. Setting: hospital Epidemic/pandemic disease: COVID‐19 Phase of disease outbreak: during the outbreak
Participants	Total study population: 102 medical workers (37 from the 'first batch' and 69 from the 'second batch' of medical workers within the fever clinic) Inclusion criteria: "All medical workers at fever clinic during that time period were eligible for the study" Exclusion criteria: none stated Type (profession) of staff: "40 (39.2%) doctors, 54 (52.9%) nurses, and 8 (7.8%) laboratory technicians handling specimens from patients." Length of time in the profession: "a median of 6 (3, 13) years of work experience" Previous experience of working in the frontline during an epidemic/ pandemic: not reported Details of who the frontline staff were providing care for: patients entered a fever clinic within an ED for triaging patients during the COVID‐19 outbreak
Interventions	1. Psychological support (n = 102) Type of intervention: psychological support intervention Materials: not reported Procedures: a "a hotline service was set up by the Department of Psychological Medicine, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day, to talk with medical workers about their feelings, provide support and understanding, and help them find emotional resources. Furthermore, we continuously monitored these medical regularly feeding back findings to the Emergency Department to allow for adjustments." Provided by: "Experienced psychiatrists and psychological evaluators enrolled in the hotline work after standardized training." Delivery: "The hotline service was available to firstline medical workers in the fever clinic 7 days a week from 9 am to 9pm beginning on January 24, 2020 by the same team, to talk with medical workers about their feelings, provide listening, understanding, empathy, and help them find individual resources." Regimen: not stated Tailoring: not stated Modification: "adjustments" to the working conditions within the fever clinic were made in response to feedback from the service providers. Adherence: not reported Details of any adverse events/unintended consequences: none reported
Outcomes	Outcomes: IES‐R: a 22‐item self‐report questionnaire designed to assess symptoms of intrusive thoughts (8 items), avoidance (8 items) and hyperarousal (6 items) resulting from traumatic life events sources of distress were measured by an 18‐item questionnaire data from PHQ‐9 and MBI are reported for the first 'batch' of workers (n = 37) Data collection: IES‐R and sources of distress were measured at the end of the period of duty "PHQ‐9 and MBI were administered at the end of their duty", for the first batch of workers only ("duty" was a period of 2‐3 weeks working on the fever clinic")
Funding	Funding statement: "J.C. and J.W. received funding support from PUMCH (pumch‐2016‐3.3 and ZC201902261, respectively)." "The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report." (PUMCH ‐ Peking Union Medical College Hospital). Conflict of interest: not reported
Notes	It is unclear whether the "qualitative interview" from which results are reported formed part of the intervention (i.e. the interview took place as part of the 'hotline' service); or whether this occurred in addition to the hotline service. Included in the review of qualitative evidence synthesis. Classified as a 'qualitative study', as qualitative data from this mixed‐method study were used. Methodological assessment: assessed using CASP tool Overall assessment: minor limitations. For details of assessment see Table 9, and for support for judgements see Appendix 13.