Why the study?
What are the predictors of job satisfaction in cardiac patients returning to work after coronary revascularization and cardiac rehabilitation?
What are the predictors of job satisfaction in cardiac patients returning to work after coronary revascularization and cardiac rehabilitation?
Baseline job satisfaction, depression, and ambition are independent predictors of job satisfaction in cardiac patients returning to work after revascularization, highlighting the importance of early psychosocial assessment.
Suggests early psychosocial screening may identify post-revascularization patients at risk.
INTRODUCTION: Research into work reintegration following invasive cardiac procedures is limited. The aim of this prospective study was to explore predictors of job satisfaction among cardiac patients who have returned to work after cardiac rehabilitation (CR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 90 cardiac patients who have recently been treated with coronary angioplasty or heart surgery. They were evaluated during their CR and 12 months after the discharge using validated self-report questionnaires measuring job satisfaction, work stress-related factors, emotional distress and illness perception. Information on socio-demographic, medical and occupational factors has also been collected. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic, occupational and medical variables, baseline job satisfaction (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.01) and ambition (p < 0.05) turned out to be independent, significant predictors of job satisfaction following return to work (RTW). Patients who had a partial RTW were more satisfied with their job than those who had a full RTW, controlling for baseline job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: These findings recommend an early assessment of patients' psychosocial work environment and emotional distress, with particular emphasis on job satisfaction and depressive symptoms, in order to promote satisfying and healthy RTW after cardiac interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fiabane et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: