Hall 2002.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: low‐risk AMI patients admitted to Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals; April 1994‐December 1996 Allocation: not reported Blinding: not reported Randomisation: not reported Follow‐up(s): 1 year Description: combined outpatient rehabilitation programme
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age: 56 Sex (male %): 59 Number of participants : 65 Working before CHD: 36 Control group Mean age: 56 Sex (male %): 56 Number of participants: 62 Working before CHD: 40 Inclusion criteria < 76 years of age at the time of the MI Low‐risk patients: Negative exercise stress test (< 2 mm ST segment change) with ≥ 7 metabolic equivalents achieved at the initial exercise test or, in manual workers, a workload commensurate with levels achieved at work prior to AMI LVEF ≥ 40% No inducible ventricular tachycardia in patients with LVEF < 40% No unstable angina post infarction No severe cardiac failure Exclusion criteria: high‐risk patients Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work (i.e. white vs. blue collar): unknown Severity of CHD: less severe (excl. unstable angina post infarction, cardiac failure, LVEF > 40%, negative exercise stress test (> 2mm ST depression))
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Rehabilitation group (REHAB) 4 days a week for 6 weeks outpatient rehabilitation programme including: low‐level training programme counselling on group behavioural and risk factor management (given education about risk factors for heart disease, counselling and a home walking programme) Duration of intervention: 6 weeks Providers: ‐ Control group ERNA: return to normal activities 2 weeks after infarction without rehabilitation Given education about risk factors for heart disease, counselling and a home walking programme
Outcomes	Graphics of cumulative proportions of people returning to any paid work presented. Participants in the control group returned to work sooner (survival analysis: Wilcoxon test P = 0.007; log‐rank test P = 0.038), but the cumulative percentages were approximately the same by 12 months. Cardiovascular extension of the Health Measurement Questionnaire
Identification	Sponsorship source: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Country: Australia Setting: outpatient Possible conflicts of interest: none reported Ethics committee approval: approved by the Western Sydney Area Ethics Committee. Consent obtained from participants and physicians
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No method of randomisation was reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No method of allocation concealment was reported
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 outcome assessor blinding was reported, RTW was assessed with questionnaires asking how many hours of paid work the participants worked in the previous week.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	By the 12‐month follow‐up, loss to follow‐up was similar in both groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to determine, no study protocol was available.
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified