Cochrane · systematic review · CD010748
Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease
Hegewald, J, Wegewitz, UE, Euler, U, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
19
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 31.6%Low 9 · 47.4%Moderate 4 · 21.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Psychological interventions (including health education) compared to usual care for people with coronary heart disease
Population: people with coronary heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care | RR 1.08 [0.84, 1.4] | 6 studies · 375 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months ‐ 1 year) Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care | RR 1.24 [0.95, 1.63] | 7 studies · 316 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care | RR 1.09 [0.88, 1.34] | 3 studies · 239 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Days until return to work Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 125 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Work‐directed counselling compared to usual care for people with coronary heart disease
Population: people with coronary heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Days until return to work Work‐directed counselling vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 618 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse effects: cardiac deaths Work‐directed counselling vs usual care | RR 1 [0.19, 5.39] | 2 studies · 388 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Physical conditioning interventions compared to usual care for people with coronary heart disease
Population: people with coronary heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | RR 1.17 [0.97, 1.41] | 4 studies · 460 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months‐1 year) Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | RR 1.09 [0.99, 1.2] | 5 studies · 510 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | RR 1.04 [0.82, 1.3] | 2 studies · 156 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion of participants at work in the extended long term (≥ 5 years) Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | RR 1.83 [1.26, 2.66] | 1 study · 119 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Days until return to work Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 430 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Adverse effects: cardiac deaths Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care | RR 1 [0.35, 2.8] | 2 studies · 285 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Combined interventions compared to usual care for people with coronary heart disease
Population: people with coronary heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) Combined interventions vs usual care | RR 1.56 [1.23, 1.98] | 4 studies · 395 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months ‐ 1 year) Combined interventions vs usual care | RR 1.06 [1, 1.13] | 10 studies · 992 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) Combined interventions vs usual care | RR 1.14 [0.96, 1.37] | 6 studies · 491 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of participants at work in the extended long term (≥ 5 years) Combined interventions vs usual care | RR 1.09 [0.86, 1.38] | 4 studies · 350 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Days until return to work Combined interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 181 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Health‐related quality of life Combined interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 87 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects: reinfarctions Combined interventions vs usual care | RR 0.56 [0.23, 1.43] | 3 studies · 265 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |