Andersson 2010.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: AMI, CABG, PCI patients recruited from April 1997‐October 2000 Allocation: envelope Blinding: not blinded Randomisation: no Information provided Follow‐up(s): yearly up to 5 years Description: combined inpatient rehabilitation programme for women
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age (SD): 52.5 (6.2) Sex (male %): 0 Number of participants randomised: 69 Working before CHD: 54 Control group Mean age (SD): 54.3 (6.1) Sex (male %): 0 Number of participants randomised: 61 Working before CHD: 42 Inclusion criteria Female < 65 years of age, working age Resident of Stockholm CHD: hospitalised for AMI, CABG or PCI Exclusion criteria Non‐Swedish speaking Heart failure Unstable angina pectoris Other disabling diseases including drug abuse Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work (i.e. white‐ vs blue‐collar): unknown Severity of CHD: less
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Group programme (6‐10 women) aimed at promoting and maintain lifestyle changes 2‐week residential course 5 inpatient days after 2 months 2 follow‐ups per year, each requiring 2 inpatient days Group activities included: seminar/discussions (group and individual counselling with a cardiologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, dietician, physiotherapist) practical activities: e.g. healthy cooking physical activities: walking, aerobics, Yoga, Qi Gong, water‐aerobics daily relaxation techniques: breathing exercises, meditation activities with friends and families on weekend psychosocial intervention: an interactive, self‐instructional programme “Stress as an Opportunity”. Duration of intervention: 5 years Providers: trained personnel Control group Conventional post‐hospitalisation care varied by hospital, e.g. physiotherapy twice per week for 4 weeks information on healthy food and adverse effects of nicotine
Outcomes	Proportion at work at 6–12 months (medium term): 12 months Proportion at work at > 12 months to < 5 years (long term): 3 years Proportion at work at 5 years (extended long term): 5 years Number of participants at work calculated from proportions provided and number of participants working at baseline Becks Depression Inventory, Gothenburg QoL Inventory (only baseline results reported) Adverse events (mortality, emergency room visits)
Identification	Sponsorship source: supported by Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart & Lung Foundation, regional agreement on medical training & clinical research (ALF), Stockholm County Council, Saltsjöbaden Hospital and the Dept. of Cardiology at the Karolinska Univ. Hospital Country: Sweden Setting: single‐centre: Saltsjöbaden Hospital near Stockholm; inpatient Possible conflicts of interest: none reported Ethics committee approval: approved by the Karolinska Hospital Ethics Committee and all participants gave informed written consent.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “The randomisation was not stratified as the number of eligible patients was presumed to be too small for a stratified randomisation.” No further information provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “All baseline examinations were performed before randomisation… Patients were logged into the study and then called to baseline examination. After that, a biomedical scientist, not involved in the study, opened the envelope that revealed the group allocation.”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to the nature of the study, blinding of participants was not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Results only given as the proportion (%) employed, on sick leave or with disability pension (not mutually exclusive) for year 1, 3 and 5 after study onset. No information regarding the actual number of study participants employed at the 1‐, 3‐ or 5‐year follow‐ups were reported or how many study participants were followed at each of the follow‐up time points (loss‐to‐follow‐up). Study authors contacted, no further information provided. No information about how the drop‐outs (n = 19) were distributed across the groups ⇢ imbalanced group sizes (I: n = 69; C: n = 61)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No study protocol available, however no difference in proportion of employed study participants was detected and still was reported, suggesting there was no reporting bias (towards only reporting statistically significant results).
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified