Hämäläinen 1991.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: patients < 65 years of age, treated for their first AMI at 1 of 5 hospitals; April 1978‐March 1980 Allocation: randomly Blinding: not reported Randomisation: not reported Follow‐up(s): 1, 2, 3 months, 1 and 6 years Description: 2‐week inpatient combined rehabilitation programme
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group (residential rehabilitation) Mean age (SD): ‐ Sex (male %): 77 Number of participants: 228 Working before CHD: no information provided Intrvention group (hospital outpatient) Mean age (SD): ‐ Sex (male %): 77 Number of participants: 228 Working before CHD: no information provided Inclusion criteria < 65 years of age Diagnosed MI following the WHO criteria Treated for their first definite AMI Survived the hospital phase Exclusion criteria ‐ Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work (i.e. white vs. blue collar): unknown Severity of CHD: unknown
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Residential rehabilitation group: Medical examination with blood tests, chest X‐ray, ECG, 24‐h ECG and cycle ergometer exercise test A physiotherapist advised on how to continue physical exercise at home Dietary counselling consisted of nutrition classes A doctor guided 2 sessions about risk factors, MI, medication, and rehabilitation A psychologist discussed psychic and social consequences of heart attack Duration of intervention: 2 weeks Providers: psychologists, diet specialists, physiotherapists, physician Control group Hospital outpatient care with visits to the coronary outpatient clinic 1, 2, and 3 months after AMI, and also later if medical problems arose. The coronary clubs of local Heart Associations provided patient education and arranged exercise groups. The main emphasis was however on outpatient clinic visits.
Outcomes	Proportion at work at 6 months–12 months: 12 months Adverse events (mortality, reinfarctions)
Identification	Sponsorship source: not reported Country: Finland Setting: inpatient rehabilitation Possible conflicts of interest: no information provided Ethics committee approval: not reported
Notes	Study authors write that only people who were working (also part‐time while receiving half‐pension), on sick leave, or unemployed at the time of their MI were included in the RTW analysis. The number of participants included in the analysis was provided, and the study authors could not be reached.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No method of sequence generation is described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No method of allocation concealment is described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to the nature of this programme the blinding of participants was not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding of outcome assessors is described and it is unclear how employment status/RTW was determined.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "The participation rates at the check‐ups were 97%, 92%, and 89% at 1, 3, and 6 years"; no overall allocation of dropouts between intervention and control group indicated.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to determine, no study protocol was available
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified