Key result
Vocational rehabilitation boosts return-to-work rates to 87.1% vs. 61.6% in working-age CAD patients.
Why the study?
Coronary heart disease increasingly affects younger adults who face return-to-work difficulties, but evidence for vocational rehabilitation in Chinese patients remains scarce.
Does a vocational rehabilitation program based on society ecosystems theory improve return-to-work rates in young and middle-aged patients with coronary heart disease?
RCT (n=158)
Single-blind (outcome assessors and statisticians)
1:1 ratio using SPSS
No
Does a vocational rehabilitation program based on society ecosystems theory improve return-to-work rates in young and middle-aged patients with coronary heart disease?
Odds Ratio: 5.204 (95% CI 2.06–13.148)
Absolute Event Rate: 87.1% vs 61.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
A structured vocational rehabilitation program based on society ecosystems theory significantly improves return-to-work rates, self-efficacy, and quality of life while reducing anxiety in young and middle-aged patients with coronary heart disease.
Vocational rehab may boost RTW rates in young Chinese CHD patients; leaves open need for multicenter confirmation before practice change.
Background Coronary heart disease (CHD) is increasingly affecting younger adults, but many face difficulties returning to work, exacerbating financial burdens. Although vocational rehabilitation may improve employment outcomes, evidence for Chinese CHD patients remains scarce. Therefore, the goal of this study is to improve the employment status of middle-aged and young patients with CHD by implementing vocational rehabilitation measures based on society ecosystems theory. Methods The vocational rehabilitation program was developed in a multi-stage process. First, a preliminary draft was formulated based on a literature review, expert panels, and semi-structured interviews. Subsequently, this draft was refined and validated through a two-round Delphi expert consensus process. Following this, a pilot study was conducted to assess its feasibility. Finally, we evaluated the finalized program in a single-center randomized controlled trial, where 158 participants were equally randomized to receive either the 3-month intervention ( n = 79) or usual care ( n = 79). Return-to-work rates were the primary outcome indicator, with anxiety, quality of life, and return-to-work self-efficacy as secondary outcome indicators. Results Following the 3-month intervention, the vocational rehabilitation intervention significantly improved return-to-work rates compared to the control group (87.1% vs. 61.6%; χ 2 = 12.114, p < 0.001). In addition, return-to-work self-efficacy, quality of life, and anxiety improved in the intervention group after the intervention, and the difference was statistically significant compared to the control group (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for demographic characteristics and clinically relevant factors, the logistic regression model results robustly demonstrated that patients in the intervention group had 5.204 times the odds of successfully returning to work compared to those in the control group [95% CI (2.060, 13.148), p < 0.001]. Conclusion Our findings indicate that ecosystem theory-based vocational rehabilitation can effectively enhance employment outcomes in young and middle-aged patients with CHD. Healthcare professionals should consider multidimensional factors when developing return-to-work interventions, with future efforts incorporating workplace-related considerations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Coronary heart disease (n=158). Vocational rehabilitation program based on society ecosystems theory vs. Usual care (routine nursing measures) was evaluated on Return-to-work (RTW) rate (OR 5.204, 95% CI 2.060-13.148, p=<0.001). A vocational rehabilitation program based on society ecosystems theory significantly improved return-to-work rates compared to usual care (87.1% vs. 61.6%, OR 5.204) in young and middle-aged patients with coronary heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: