Back to all available

The Impact of Anxiety and Social Support as Factors Influencing Return to Work in Young and Middle-Aged Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

cardiology
public-health
mental-health
healthcare-services

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to identify predictors of RTW among young and middle-aged PCI patients, with a focus on the roles of social support and anxiety.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving 221 post-PCI patients. Data were collected via electronic medical records and telephone follow-ups at three months post-discharge. Standardized instruments, including the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), were utilized. Statistical analyses included t-tests, chi-square tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and binary logistic regression.

Results Within three months, 177 (80.1%) patients had returned to work. Younger age (OR = 0.862, p< 0.001) and higher social support (OR = 1.124, p=0.001) were significant facilitators of RTW, while elevated anxiety also showed a positive association with RTW (OR = 1.095, p=0.019). Most clinical parameters showed no significant difference between RTW and non-RTW groups.

Conclusion: Successful return to work post-PCI is multifactorial, influenced by age, social support, and nuanced psychological factors such as anxiety. The findings highlight the need for integrated, personalized rehabilitation approaches that combine clinical, psychological, and vocational support. Healthcare providers play a central role in assessment, education, and coordination of care. Future efforts should develop risk stratification tools, strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration, and leverage digital health to improve RTW outcomes globally.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].