1. Change of authors

Catherine Deane is no longer an author of the review.

2. Selection of studies

The text in the protocol reads as follows: "Review authors AP and KD will independently inspect citations from the searches and identify relevant abstracts. A random 20% sample will be independently re‐inspected by YL to ensure reliability. Where disputes arise, we will acquire the full report for more detailed scrutiny. Full reports of the abstracts meeting the review criteria will be obtained and inspected by AP and KD. Again, a random 20% of reports will be re‐inspected by YL in order to ensure reliable selection. Where it is not possible to resolve disagreement by discussion, we will attempt to contact the authors of the study for clarification."

This now reads: "Due to the small amount of studies that were identified (four studies in total) by the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, all three authors AP, YL, MF inspected all four studies and unanimously agreed that only one of studies should be included in the review. We obtained both abstracts and full study reports and thoroughly assessed all of them."

3. Change to 'Summary of findings' outcomes

Satisfaction with training programme was not reported in trials so we used the reported outcomes for satisfaction (with treatment and with 'therapeutic relationship').

Mental state was not a prestated outcome of interest in our protocol, however, as other data were not available, we included mental state data, reported in our included study, in the 'Summary of findings' table.

4. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

The text in the protocol reads as follows: "Again, review authors AP and KD will work independently to assess risk of bias by using criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) to assess trial quality."

This now reads:

"Review authors AP, YL and MF aimed to work independently to assess risk of bias by using criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) to assess trial quality."

5. Data extraction and management

The text in the protocol reads as follows: "Review authors AP and YL will independently extract data from all included studies. Again, any disagreement will be discussed, decisions documented and, if necessary, we will contact the authors of studies for clarification. With remaining problems KD will help clarify issues and these final decisions will be documented. "

This now reads:

Review authors AP and YL independently extracted data from the included study. We discussed any disagreements and documented decisions.We contacted authors of the included study through an open‐ended request in order to obtain missing information or for clarification. If the study had been multi‐centre, where possible, we would have extracted data relevant to each component centre separately.

For cluster randomised trials, we extracted the adjusted difference in means (aMD) of the endpoint and a measure of variation (such as a confidence intervals or standard error).

6. References

Four more references were added to 'Additional references' (Dwamena 2012; Kay 1987; McGuire‐Snieckus 2007; Nguyen 1983).