Figueiras 2017.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: recruitment at three CCUs Allocation: not reported Blinding: care‐givers were blinded Randomisation: computer block randomisation Follow‐up(s): 4, 8, and 12 months Description: an inpatient individual psychological counselling with telephone follow‐ups
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Number of participants randomised: 60 Working before CHD: 37 Age (SD): 56.6 (8.2) years Sex (male %): 92 Control group Number of participants randomised: 67 Working before CHD: 37 Age(SD): 56.8 (8.0) years Sex (male %): 79 Inclusion criteria Admitted for AMI First uncomplicated MI Able to read and write Portuguese Exclusion criteria Severe comorbid psychiatric or medical condition Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work (i.e. white vs. blue collar): unknown Severity of CHD: unknown
Interventions	Intervention In‐hospital individual participant session (about 45 min) with health psychologist including: explanation of intervention discussion/dispelling of participant’s cardiac misconceptions identification of participant’s main cardiac risk factors, and discussion of adequate risk reduction strategies Participants were mailed a manual with illness and recovery information Weekly phone calls were made in the first 4 weeks after discharge to discuss strategies to change behavior and recovery goals Duration of intervention: 4 weeks post‐discharge Providers: health psychologist Control group Standard hospital care: no structured cardiac rehabilitation was made available and counselling given individually by medical and nursing staff.
Outcomes	Proportion at work at < 6 months (short term): 4 months* Proportion at work at 6‐12 months (medium term): 8 months* *Provided by personal communication Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale
Identification	Sponsorship source: FEDER through COMPETE and FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia – reference PTDC/PSI‐PCL/112503/2009 Country: Portugal Setting: single setting, inpatient/outpatient (phone calls) Possible conflicts of interest: none reported Ethics committee approval: “The study was approved by the Ethics Commissions of all hospitals involved and by the Portuguese Data Protection Authority (CNPD) and registered with the number n º17,523/2011 – ‘Programa Coração Saudável’”
Notes	RTW results were obtained through personal communication. It is unclear how many people actually responded to the follow‐ups.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “The randomisation sequence was generated using a computer block randomisation to allocate the patients either to the control or the Intervention group after the baseline assessment.”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation and randomisation were conducted after the baseline assessment. No information regarding allocation concealment was provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: “Caregivers were blinded to the group assignment.”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	None reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants not replying at all time‐points (loss‐to‐follow‐up) were similar in both groups. However, it is unclear how many actually responded regarding the RTW results.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of an a priori published study protocol. Non‐significant results for RTW not provided in the published articles
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified