Authors: Iris Arends, Ute Bültmann and Jos Verbeek were added as review authors.

Title: The title has been changed from 'Return to work interventions for adjustment disorders' to 'Interventions to facilitate return to work in adults with adjustment disorders' as this better represents the topic of the review.

Types of studies: A more clear definition is given of the focus of the types of studies included in the review.

Types of participants: The word 'adults' is replaced by 'workers', because the review is not focused on all adults but only on working adults. Also, we have further operationalised the definition of 'adjustment disorder' because the definition of the protocol was insufficient to decide if studies were on workers with adjustment disorders and could be included on this point. The sentence in the protocol on including "patients in all organisational settings..." has been deleted because we felt this information was superfluous. Furthermore, we have added that studies could be included when not all participants were on sick leave at baseline (i.e. some were still at work), as long as the outcome data on sick leave/RTW were separately reported for the group that was on sick leave at baseline.

Types of interventions: The interventions (and the comparisons) are more thoroughly explained. Furthermore we added a mixed group of interventions, consisting of combined interventions, because otherwise we were not able to categorise an intervention that used a mixture of two or more interventions. We deleted the sentence on separately managing interventions aimed at the workplace, because we chose to categorise interventions based on their core elements instead of looking at the setting where they were implemented.

Types of outcomes: For the primary outcomes, we have chosen to minimise the number of outcomes presented in the protocol as per the advice in the Cochrane Handbook. We focused on time lost from work as the primary outcome and defined this more clearly as partial and full RTW, which is a frequently used outcome measure in the research literature for workers on sick leave. The other primary outcomes mentioned in the protocol have been grouped in the review as secondary outcome measures defined as work functioning. Two secondary outcome measures have been deleted. These were 'patient compliance to the intervention' and 'trial drop‐out', because these variables were already taken into account in the 'Risk of bias' analyses.

Search methods: Based on discussions with the Trial Search Co‐ordinator of the CCDAN Group, it was decided to search the CCDAN registers, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the WHO trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The Trial Search Co‐ordinator helped with finding the right terms for adjustment disorders and randomised clinical trials. We decided not to use search terms for the interventions because we wanted to find all types of interventions and the naming of interventions varies widely. Instead, we used terms to identify studies on RTW or on workers on sick leave. We refrained from writing to all authors of articles because we felt that there was enough expertise in the review team, and this would unnecessarily burden the authors. We also refrained from searching congress abstracts as there was not just one forum of discussion, but proceedings of many different conferences should have been searched. This went beyond our resources.

Selection of studies: To enhance a structured first selection of studies based on title and abstract screening, we developed a standardised form with the following criteria: (1) study design is a RCT, (2) study population consists of a working population and (3) study population has common mental disorders (adjustment disorders, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders).

Assessment of risk of bias: In the protocol, a quality assessment with the Downs and Black list was planned. However, we decided to analyse the risk of bias in accordance with the recommendations made in the Cochrane Handbook.

Data extraction: No differences.

Data analysis: We changed the reporting of dichotomous outcome measures from odds ratios to risk ratios because the event of returning to work is quite common which inflates the odds ratio. Moreover, risk ratios are easier to interpret.