Vermeulen 1988.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: hospitalised for AMI during the period January 1971‐May 1975 Allocation: not reported Blinding: not reported Randomisation: no method described Follow‐up(s): 12 months Description: combined outpatient rehabilitation programme
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age (SD): ‐ Sex (male %): 100 Number of participants randomised: 51 Working before CHD: 40 Control group Mean age (SD): ‐ Sex (male %): 100 Number of participants randomised: 47 Working before CHD: 45 Inclusion criteria First MI Male Aged 44‐55 Willing to participate in the programme Exclusion criteria Lived too far away to visit the outpatient department Contraindications or unsuitability for undertaking a treadmill exercise test Preferred to visit their own specialist Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work: blue‐collar Severity of CHD: less severe
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Rehabilitation interventions consisted of physical training, social counselling, group meetings and, when necessary, individual psychological advice The participants visited the rehabilitation centre 5 days/week for 6 weeks Physical training entailed a warm‐up in which specific muscle groups were loosened, followed by an interval exercises on a bicycle ergometer. After physical training (2 weeks), occupational therapy was added to the programme. The participants' behaviour was observed during these activities, the outcome of which could be used for immediate intervention or for discussion at a group meeting. Group meetings: 1 x/week, under the guidance of the social worker and one of the other members of the team. Any special questions were answered by the specialist in a particular field at the next session. Continued physical activity was offered in the form of group training programmes, consisting of recreational activities such as volleyball, badminton and other indoor games. Duration of intervention: 6 weeks Providers: cardiologist, rehabilitation medicine specialist, psychologist, social worker, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, job counsellor Control group No rehabilitation programme
Outcomes	Proportion at work at 6– 12 months (medium term): 12 months Adverse events (mortality, reinfarction)
Identification	Sponsorship source: no information provided Country: The Netherlands Setting: single‐centred, outpatient: Revalidatie Instituut Muiderpoort Possible conflicts of interest: no information provided Ethics committee approval: not reported
Notes	The proportion of blue‐collar workers returning to work was lower but the difference was not statistically significant.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "...the patients were randomly assigned to either a control group (N = 47) or a rehabilitation group (N = 51)." No further information given
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	None described
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	Not reported, and unclear how RTW was assessed (questionnaire or register)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No loss‐to‐follow‐up reported. RTW results at 1‐year follow‐up describe 85 participants. Examination of exercise tolerance at 5‐year follow‐up according to working status describes 89 participants
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No study protocol was available. However, the results were not statistically significant, and little differences were observed regarding RTW between the intervention and control group
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified