Poster Defence Mastery — With References Flashcards
Why did you choose this topic in the first place?
Alternate Wordings:
“What motivated you to focus on cardiovascular disease and work productivity?”
“Why is this research area important right now?”
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of long-term health-related unemployment.
There’s limited evidence directly linking both cardiac rehab and health awareness to work productivity outcomes among working-age adults.
The economic and social burden on the workforce is massive, yet not deeply explored.
References:
- Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) focused on physical workstations, not specifically on CR or awareness.
- Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) looked at cardio-metabolic health, but not productivity or return-to-work.
- Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) studied older adults’ cognition, missing the working-age link.
What makes your review different from previous studies?
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) and others examined productivity in the context of active workstations, but no direct link to cardiac rehab (CR) + health awareness.
Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) examined physical activity interventions for cardio-metabolic health, not workplace productivity.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) addressed cognitive functioning in older adults, no workplace outcomes.
My review unites CR + awareness and explicitly measures workplace productivity in working-age UK adults.
Why combine rehab and awareness in a single study?
Cardiac rehabilitation tackles the physical recovery and cardio-metabolic improvements.
Health awareness shapes adherence and behavioural change, amplifying CR effects.
Literature suggests combined interventions can produce greater return-to-work outcomes
Hence, ignoring either underestimates the real-world impact on absenteeism and employee performance.
Why focus on working-age adults only?
Productivity and return-to-work are crucial for individuals aged 18–65, who incur the highest economic impact if absent.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) exemplified how many studies look at older adults’ cognition, but not their workforce engagement.
I target the most policy-relevant demographic for cost-justifying NHS interventions.
Why is this specifically needed now, in 2024–2025?
No recent UK-based synthesis merges CR + awareness + productivity in working-age groups.
Post-COVID environment demands evidence-based strategies to reduce absenteeism and support workforce recovery.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is cost-effective, but we lack updated productivity data to complement that for NHS policy.
What is the main aim of your systematic review?
To evaluate how cardiac rehabilitation and health awareness interventions affect workplace productivity, absenteeism, and employee performance in working-age adults.
Reference: Building on the cost-effectiveness found by Shields, G. E. et al. (2018), this adds a productivity dimension.
Why does this aim matter for NHS policy?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is highly cost-effective; if we link that to economic productivity gains, it further justifies resource allocation and rehab targets.
Productivity-based evidence can influence funding for integrated CR + awareness programs (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 suggested workplace performance metrics are crucial).
Which gap are you addressing with this aim?
Prior reviews (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018; Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) either skip productivity or skip awareness; none specifically merge both, focusing on working-age return-to-work outcomes in the UK.
I fill this gap by systematically synthesizing CR + awareness + workforce data.
List your four key objectives.
Investigate CR effectiveness on return-to-work rates.
Evaluate awareness interventions on work productivity.
Identify research gaps for future trials or meta-analyses.
Bridge the divide between productivity-only (Ojo et al.) and rehab-only (Mulchandani et al.) approaches.
Which objective will likely yield the most actionable insight and why?
Objective #1: CR’s direct impact on return-to-work is the most easily measurable and relatable to occupational health policies.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) provided cost-effectiveness data on CR, so pairing it with real productivity outcomes can significantly influence NHS investment decisions.
How did you build your Boolean search terms?
Started with common terms from existing reviews (Ojo, Mulchandani, etc.): “return to work,” “employee productivity,” “cardiac rehab.”
Refined them with MeSH headings (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021) to maximize retrieval and reduce missed articles.
Why use MeSH terms specifically?
MeSH terms standardize search queries across biomedical databases, improving precision and recall (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Minimizes the risk of synonyms or varied phrasing (e.g., “cardiac rehab” vs. “heart rehabilitation”).
Why choose Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus as your databases?
Google Scholar: Captures grey literature and broader hits (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018; Haddaway, N. R. et al., 2015).
PubMed: Core biomedical research with specialized filters (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Cochrane: High-quality RCTs and systematic reviews.
Scopus: Citation tracking to find forward/backward references and robust indexing.
What is your exclusion criteria and why?
Exclude: non-human, elderly-focused, non-workplace contexts, or outcomes unrelated to productivity.
This ensures a laser focus on working-age productivity impacts, the main goal of the review (matching the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018, but adapted for CVD context).
How does PRISMA enhance rigour in your search and screening?
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provides a transparent method for identifying, screening, excluding, and including studies.
We track duplicates, reasons for exclusion, and final inclusion (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 also used a systematic approach, but PRISMA formalizes it fully).
Why do forwards/backwards referencing?
It finds landmark or newly cited papers not captured by initial search terms.
Minimizes publication bias by exploring references from included studies forward in time (Scopus is key here).
Why did you select Jadad, Downs & Black, and PEDro?
Jadad: Best for RCTs, focusing on randomization and blinding.
PEDro: Ideal for physiotherapy and intervention trials.
Downs & Black: Great for observational or mixed-method research.
This multi-tool approach lets me tailor quality scoring to each study design (mirroring how Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) used multiple criteria for different intervention types).
How do you define a “high-quality” study in your review?
Must exhibit robust methodology: clear population, intervention, outcome measures, minimal risk of bias, well-reported productivity metrics.
Must meet threshold scores on relevant scales (e.g., ≥3 on Jadad, ≥6 on PEDro, or similarly robust on Downs & Black).
What does your PRISMA flow diagram show so far?
75 total records → 40 duplicates removed → 35 for screening → 24 full-text reviews → ~9 included.
Demonstrates structured progression from broad search to final inclusion (Mirroring the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) with a narrower lens on CR/awareness).
Why publish a PRISMA diagram if your review isn’t finished?
Academic transparency: Shows your systematic approach at each stage.
If more studies are found via forward/backward chaining, you simply update the diagram.
Partial PRISMA demonstrates rigour early, aligning with best practices (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018 on thorough searching).
Walk me through your PICO.
P (Population): Working-age adults (18–65) with CVD risk or post-CVD.
I (Intervention): Cardiac rehab + health awareness.
C (Comparison): Standard care / no formal rehab or awareness program.
O (Outcome): Productivity, absenteeism, return-to-work metrics.
Why exclude older adults in your PICO?
Return-to-work isn’t typically applicable to retirees or older adults, as pointed out by Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) who studied seniors’ cognition.
My focus is workforce productivity, which directly impacts economic policy.
Why a purple/red colour scheme?
Red relates to the cardiovascular theme.
Purple is eye-catching, ensures visibility and section demarcation.
Visual design aids quick scanning of a complex academic poster (Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) recommended clarity in presenting workplace data).
What do the images/icons on your poster represent?
Treadmill symbolizes cardiac rehab exercises.
Office icon represents the workplace environment, tying to productivity.
cons convey key points quickly, echoing how visual aids improve engagement in public health messages (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 noted the value of clear visuals in interventions).
Why does this personally matter to you?
As a future cardiologist, I want to address holistic recovery—not just physical health but the economic and psychosocial dimensions too.
Return-to-work can profoundly affect a patient’s quality of life and self-esteem.
How does this align with your MSc program?
It integrates cardiac rehab, health promotion, and a systematic review—all core pillars of the MSc.
Potential to shape NHS rehab pathways with real policy impact.
How might you apply these findings in real practice?
Propose to NHS cardiac rehab teams: integrate awareness modules alongside structured rehab.
Advocate for return-to-work metrics as a standard KPI.
References:
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR’s cost-effectiveness.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) indicated productivity measures can be systematically tracked.
Isn’t “productivity” too vague to measure?
I define productivity via absenteeism, time to return-to-work, or validated performance scales used in HR (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018).
These metrics have been recognized in occupational health research and can be quantified.
What biases or limitations might your methodology face?
Potential publication bias (positive results more likely published).
English-only restriction can miss some international studies.
Mitigated by searching grey literature via Google Scholar (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018) and doing forward/backward referencing.
Why not do a meta-analysis?
Studies vary in design (RCT vs. observational) and measure productivity differently, so a meta-analysis might be inappropriate or produce misleading combined effect sizes.
A narrative synthesis better handles diverse outcomes and study designs (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 also opted for a partial meta-analysis but with consistent cardio-metabolic outcomes only).
Do awareness campaigns truly change behaviour long-term?
Studies (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) suggest health awareness can boost adherence to interventions.
Behavioural change models (Health Belief Model) show knowledge plays a major role in maintaining healthy lifestyles post-rehab.
If an employer says, “What’s the ROI of implementing CR + awareness?” how do you respond?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018): CR is cost-effective, ranging from $1,065–$71,755/QALY.
Linking these interventions to reduced absenteeism and improved employee performance yields potential savings for both employers and the NHS.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) further underscores that workplace-focused interventions can sustain or even enhance productivity over time.
What motivated you to focus on cardiovascular disease and work productivity?
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of long-term health-related unemployment.
There’s limited evidence directly linking both cardiac rehab and health awareness to work productivity outcomes among working-age adults.
The economic and social burden on the workforce is massive, yet not deeply explored.
References:
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) focused on physical workstations, not specifically on CR or awareness.
Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) looked at cardio-metabolic health, but not productivity or return-to-work.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) studied older adults’ cognition, missing the working-age link.
How does your work stand out from earlier systematic reviews?
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) and others examined productivity in the context of active workstations, but no direct link to cardiac rehab (CR) + health awareness.
Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) examined physical activity interventions for cardio-metabolic health, not workplace productivity.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) addressed cognitive functioning in older adults, no workplace outcomes.
My review unites CR + awareness and explicitly measures workplace productivity in working-age UK adults.
Could you have focused on rehab alone?
Cardiac rehabilitation tackles the physical recovery and cardio-metabolic improvements.
Health awareness shapes adherence and behavioural change, amplifying CR effects.
Literature suggests combined interventions can produce greater return-to-work outcomes (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019, partial link; but they didn’t measure productivity).
Hence, ignoring either underestimates the real-world impact on absenteeism and employee performance.
Why exclude older populations from your systematic review?
Productivity and return-to-work are crucial for individuals aged 18–65, who incur the highest economic impact if absent.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) exemplified how many studies look at older adults’ cognition, but not their workforce engagement.
I target the most policy-relevant demographic for cost-justifying NHS interventions.
Summarize your review goal in one line.
To evaluate how cardiac rehabilitation and health awareness interventions affect workplace productivity, absenteeism, and employee performance in working-age adults.
Reference: Building on the cost-effectiveness found by Shields, G. E. et al. (2018), this adds a productivity dimension.
Can’t we rely on reviews from 5+ years ago?
No recent UK-based synthesis merges CR + awareness + productivity in working-age groups.
Post-COVID environment demands evidence-based strategies to reduce absenteeism and support workforce recovery.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is cost-effective, but we lack updated productivity data to complement that for NHS policy.
What real-world difference does this aim make?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is highly cost-effective; if we link that to economic productivity gains, it further justifies resource allocation and rehab targets.
Productivity-based evidence can influence funding for integrated CR + awareness programs (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 suggested workplace performance metrics are crucial).
Aren’t there existing studies on CR or awareness already?
Prior reviews (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018; Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) either skip productivity or skip awareness; none specifically merge both, focusing on working-age return-to-work outcomes in the UK.
I fill this gap by systematically synthesizing CR + awareness + workforce data.
What are you looking to find out, step by step?
Investigate CR effectiveness on return-to-work rates.
Evaluate awareness interventions on work productivity.
Identify research gaps for future trials or meta-analyses.
Bridge the divide between productivity-only (Ojo et al.) and rehab-only (Mulchandani et al.) approaches.
If you had to pick one, which objective is most practical?
Objective #1: CR’s direct impact on return-to-work is the most easily measurable and relatable to occupational health policies.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) provided cost-effectiveness data on CR, so pairing it with real productivity outcomes can significantly influence NHS investment decisions.
Explain your keyword strategy.
Started with common terms from existing reviews (Ojo, Mulchandani, etc.): “return to work,” “employee productivity,” “cardiac rehab.”
Refined them with MeSH headings (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021) to maximize retrieval and reduce missed articles.
Aren’t plain keywords enough?
MeSH terms standardize search queries across biomedical databases, improving precision and recall (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Minimizes the risk of synonyms or varied phrasing (e.g., “cardiac rehab” vs. “heart rehabilitation”).
Why not just stick to PubMed or Cochrane?
Google Scholar: Captures grey literature and broader hits (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018; Haddaway, N. R. et al., 2015).
PubMed: Core biomedical research with specialized filters (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Cochrane: High-quality RCTs and systematic reviews.
Scopus: Citation tracking to find forward/backward references and robust indexing.
Which studies get cut, and why?
Exclude: non-human, elderly-focused, non-workplace contexts, or outcomes unrelated to productivity.
This ensures a laser focus on working-age productivity impacts, the main goal of the review (matching the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018, but adapted for CVD context).
Why bother using a PRISMA flow diagram?
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provides a transparent method for identifying, screening, excluding, and including studies.
We track duplicates, reasons for exclusion, and final inclusion (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 also used a systematic approach, but PRISMA formalizes it fully).
Is your Boolean search not enough?
It finds landmark or newly cited papers not captured by initial search terms.
Minimizes publication bias by exploring references from included studies forward in time (Scopus is key here).
Aren’t there single tools for all designs?
Jadad: Best for RCTs, focusing on randomization and blinding.
PEDro: Ideal for physiotherapy and intervention trials.
Downs & Black: Great for observational or mixed-method research.
This multi-tool approach lets me tailor quality scoring to each study design (mirroring how Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) used multiple criteria for different intervention types).
Why this approach?
- No single tool fits designs
- Tailors quality scoring to each study type
- Mirrors best practice from Ojo et al. (2018) who applied tools or different interventions
“A multi-tool approach increases validity and respects the structure of each study — RCTs, interventions, and observational work each need different lenses.”
What are your standards for acceptance?
Must exhibit robust methodology: clear population, intervention, outcome measures, minimal risk of bias, well-reported productivity metrics.
Must meet threshold scores on relevant scales (e.g., ≥3 on Jadad, ≥6 on PEDro, or similarly robust on Downs & Black).
Summarize your screening numbers.
75 total records → 40 duplicates removed → 35 for screening → 24 full-text reviews → ~9 included.
Demonstrates structured progression from broad search to final inclusion (Mirroring the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) with a narrower lens on CR/awareness).
Isn’t that premature (regarding the PRISMA Flow Diagram)?
Academic transparency: Shows your systematic approach at each stage.
If more studies are found via forward/backward chaining, you simply update the diagram.
Partial PRISMA demonstrates rigour early, aligning with best practices (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018 on thorough searching).
What does each letter stand for in your project?
P (Population): Working-age adults (18–65) with CVD risk or post-CVD.
I (Intervention): Cardiac rehab + health awareness.
C (Comparison): Standard care / no formal rehab or awareness program.
O (Outcome): Productivity, absenteeism, return-to-work metrics.
Isn’t that age-discriminatory?
Return-to-work isn’t typically applicable to retirees or older adults, as pointed out by Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) who studied seniors’ cognition.
My focus is workforce productivity, which directly impacts economic policy.
Couldn’t you go with something neutral?
Red relates to the cardiovascular theme.
Purple is eye-catching, ensures visibility and section demarcation.
Visual design aids quick scanning of a complex academic poster (Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) recommended clarity in presenting workplace data).
Why show a treadmill or office setting?
Treadmill symbolizes cardiac rehab exercises.
Office icon represents the workplace environment, tying to productivity.
cons convey key points quickly, echoing how visual aids improve engagement in public health messages (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 noted the value of clear visuals in interventions).
What’s your personal stake here?
As a future cardiologist, I want to address holistic recovery—not just physical health but the economic and psychosocial dimensions too.
Return-to-work can profoundly affect a patient’s quality of life and self-esteem.
In what way is this a good fit for your degree?
It integrates cardiac rehab, health promotion, and a systematic review—all core pillars of the MSc.
Potential to shape NHS rehab pathways with real policy impact.
Where do you see this going after your MSc?
Propose to NHS cardiac rehab teams: integrate awareness modules alongside structured rehab.
Advocate for return-to-work metrics as a standard KPI.
References:
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR’s cost-effectiveness.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) indicated productivity measures can be systematically tracked.
How do you operationalize it? (Regarding productivity)
I define productivity via absenteeism, time to return-to-work, or validated performance scales used in HR (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018).
These metrics have been recognized in occupational health research and can be quantified.
Are there holes in your approach?
Potential publication bias (positive results more likely published).
English-only restriction can miss some international studies.
Mitigated by searching grey literature via Google Scholar (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018) and doing forward/backward referencing.
Isn’t a meta-analysis more robust?
Studies vary in design (RCT vs. observational) and measure productivity differently, so a meta-analysis might be inappropriate or produce misleading combined effect sizes.
A narrative synthesis better handles diverse outcomes and study designs (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 also opted for a partial meta-analysis but with consistent cardio-metabolic outcomes only).
Aren’t they easily forgotten?
Studies (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) suggest health awareness can boost adherence to interventions.
Behavioural change models (Health Belief Model) show knowledge plays a major role in maintaining healthy lifestyles post-rehab.
Why should companies invest?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018): CR is cost-effective, ranging from $1,065–$71,755/QALY.
Linking these interventions to reduced absenteeism and improved employee performance yields potential savings for both employers and the NHS.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) further underscores that workplace-focused interventions can sustain or even enhance productivity over time.
Why is this research area important right now?
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of long-term health-related unemployment.
There’s limited evidence directly linking both cardiac rehab and health awareness to work productivity outcomes among working-age adults.
The economic and social burden on the workforce is massive, yet not deeply explored.
References:
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) focused on physical workstations, not specifically on CR or awareness.
Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) looked at cardio-metabolic health, but not productivity or return-to-work.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) studied older adults’ cognition, missing the working-age link.
Isn’t productivity already well-studied?
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) and others examined productivity in the context of active workstations, but no direct link to cardiac rehab (CR) + health awareness.
Mulchandani, R. et al. (2019) examined physical activity interventions for cardio-metabolic health, not workplace productivity.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) addressed cognitive functioning in older adults, no workplace outcomes.
My review unites CR + awareness and explicitly measures workplace productivity in working-age UK adults.
Isn’t awareness too intangible to measure?
Cardiac rehabilitation tackles the physical recovery and cardio-metabolic improvements.
Health awareness shapes adherence and behavioural change, amplifying CR effects.
Literature suggests combined interventions can produce greater return-to-work outcomes (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019, partial link; but they didn’t measure productivity).
Hence, ignoring either underestimates the real-world impact on absenteeism and employee performance.
CVD affects everyone—shouldn’t you be inclusive?
Productivity and return-to-work are crucial for individuals aged 18–65, who incur the highest economic impact if absent.
Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) exemplified how many studies look at older adults’ cognition, but not their workforce engagement.
I target the most policy-relevant demographic for cost-justifying NHS interventions.
What’s changed recently?
No recent UK-based synthesis merges CR + awareness + productivity in working-age groups.
Post-COVID environment demands evidence-based strategies to reduce absenteeism and support workforce recovery.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is cost-effective, but we lack updated productivity data to complement that for NHS policy.
What specific question do you want to answer?
To evaluate how cardiac rehabilitation and health awareness interventions affect workplace productivity, absenteeism, and employee performance in working-age adults.
Reference: Building on the cost-effectiveness found by Shields, G. E. et al. (2018), this adds a productivity dimension.
How does productivity tie into healthcare spending?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR is highly cost-effective; if we link that to economic productivity gains, it further justifies resource allocation and rehab targets.
Productivity-based evidence can influence funding for integrated CR + awareness programs (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 suggested workplace performance metrics are crucial).
Where exactly does your review fit?
Prior reviews (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018; Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) either skip productivity or skip awareness; none specifically merge both, focusing on working-age return-to-work outcomes in the UK.
I fill this gap by systematically synthesizing CR + awareness + workforce data.
How does your research plan break down?
- Investigate CR effectiveness on return-to-work rates.
- Evaluate awareness interventions on work productivity.
- Identify research gaps for future trials or meta-analyses.
- Bridge the divide between productivity-only (Ojo et al.) and rehab-only (Mulchandani et al.) approaches.
Which one is the game-changer?
Objective #1: CR’s direct impact on return-to-work is the most easily measurable and relatable to occupational health policies.
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) provided cost-effectiveness data on CR, so pairing it with real productivity outcomes can significantly influence NHS investment decisions.
How do you ensure you’re not missing relevant studies?
Started with common terms from existing reviews (Ojo, Mulchandani, etc.): “return to work,” “employee productivity,” “cardiac rehab.”
Refined them with MeSH headings (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021) to maximize retrieval and reduce missed articles.
What advantage do MeSH headings give you?
MeSH terms standardize search queries across biomedical databases, improving precision and recall (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Minimizes the risk of synonyms or varied phrasing (e.g., “cardiac rehab” vs. “heart rehabilitation”).
What does each database add?
Google Scholar: Captures grey literature and broader hits (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018; Haddaway, N. R. et al., 2015).
PubMed: Core biomedical research with specialized filters (Salvador-Oliván, J. A. et al., 2021).
Cochrane: High-quality RCTs and systematic reviews.
Scopus: Citation tracking to find forward/backward references and robust indexing.
Are you not worried about missing something by excluding so many?
Exclude: non-human, elderly-focused, non-workplace contexts, or outcomes unrelated to productivity.
This ensures a laser focus on working-age productivity impacts, the main goal of the review (matching the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018, but adapted for CVD context).
Couldn’t you track it informally?
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provides a transparent method for identifying, screening, excluding, and including studies.
We track duplicates, reasons for exclusion, and final inclusion (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018 also used a systematic approach, but PRISMA formalizes it fully).
What’s the advantage?
It finds landmark or newly cited papers not captured by initial search terms.
Minimizes publication bias by exploring references from included studies forward in time (Scopus is key here).
What makes these scales special?
Jadad: Best for RCTs, focusing on randomization and blinding.
PEDro: Ideal for physiotherapy and intervention trials.
Downs & Black: Great for observational or mixed-method research.
This multi-tool approach lets me tailor quality scoring to each study design (mirroring how Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) used multiple criteria for different intervention types).
How do you judge if a paper is good enough?
Must exhibit robust methodology: clear population, intervention, outcome measures, minimal risk of bias, well-reported productivity metrics.
Must meet threshold scores on relevant scales (e.g., ≥3 on Jadad, ≥6 on PEDro, or similarly robust on Downs & Black).
How many made the final cut?
75 total records → 40 duplicates removed → 35 for screening → 24 full-text reviews → ~9 included.
Demonstrates structured progression from broad search to final inclusion (Mirroring the approach in Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) with a narrower lens on CR/awareness).
What if the numbers change?
Academic transparency: Shows your systematic approach at each stage.
If more studies are found via forward/backward chaining, you simply update the diagram.
Partial PRISMA demonstrates rigour early, aligning with best practices (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018 on thorough searching).
How did you define Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome?
P (Population): Working-age adults (18–65) with CVD risk or post-CVD.
I (Intervention): Cardiac rehab + health awareness.
C (Comparison): Standard care / no formal rehab or awareness program.
O (Outcome): Productivity, absenteeism, return-to-work metrics.
CVD hits seniors too!
Return-to-work isn’t typically applicable to retirees or older adults, as pointed out by Latino, F. & Tafuri, F. (2024) who studied seniors’ cognition.
My focus is workforce productivity, which directly impacts economic policy.
What’s the symbolism?
Red relates to the cardiovascular theme.
Purple is eye-catching, ensures visibility and section demarcation.
Visual design aids quick scanning of a complex academic poster (Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) recommended clarity in presenting workplace data).
Are these just decorative?
Treadmill symbolizes cardiac rehab exercises.
Office icon represents the workplace environment, tying to productivity.
Icons convey key points quickly, echoing how visual aids improve engagement in public health messages (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 noted the value of clear visuals in interventions).
Is this purely academic?
As a future cardiologist, I want to address holistic recovery—not just physical health but the economic and psychosocial dimensions too.
Return-to-work can profoundly affect a patient’s quality of life and self-esteem.
How will it benefit your academic progression?
It integrates cardiac rehab, health promotion, and a systematic review—all core pillars of the MSc.
Potential to shape NHS rehab pathways with real policy impact.
What practical steps will you take?
Propose to NHS cardiac rehab teams: integrate awareness modules alongside structured rehab.
Advocate for return-to-work metrics as a standard KPI.
References:
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018) showed CR’s cost-effectiveness.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) indicated productivity measures can be systematically tracked.
Isn’t it subjective?
I define productivity via absenteeism, time to return-to-work, or validated performance scales used in HR (Ojo, S. O. et al., 2018).
These metrics have been recognized in occupational health research and can be quantified.
Could your review overlook certain data?
Potential publication bias (positive results more likely published).
English-only restriction can miss some international studies.
Mitigated by searching grey literature via Google Scholar (Piasecki, J. et al., 2018) and doing forward/backward referencing.
Why settle for a narrative approach (regarding a meta analysis)?
Studies vary in design (RCT vs. observational) and measure productivity differently, so a meta-analysis might be inappropriate or produce misleading combined effect sizes.
A narrative synthesis better handles diverse outcomes and study designs (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019 also opted for a partial meta-analysis but with consistent cardio-metabolic outcomes only).
Isn’t adherence purely about physical rehab?
Studies (Mulchandani, R. et al., 2019) suggest health awareness can boost adherence to interventions.
Behavioural change models (Health Belief Model) show knowledge plays a major role in maintaining healthy lifestyles post-rehab.
What’s the direct financial benefit?
Shields, G. E. et al. (2018): CR is cost-effective, ranging from $1,065–$71,755/QALY.
Linking these interventions to reduced absenteeism and improved employee performance yields potential savings for both employers and the NHS.
Ojo, S. O. et al. (2018) further underscores that workplace-focused interventions can sustain or even enhance productivity over time.
What would happen if this evidence gap continues to be ignored in NHS rehab?
Patients may physically recover but still face economic and occupational setbacks. Without productivity-focused rehab, long-term health inequalities and workforce shortages may worsen. Policymakers will also lack data for funding justification.
Who are the real stakeholders that benefit from this research?
Patients: Quicker return to work and psychosocial recovery
Employers: Lower absenteeism, higher productivity
NHS: Reduced readmissions, stronger cost-benefit rationale for rehab funding
Policy-makers: Evidence to shape workforce-targeted CVD prevention
If your review were used in NHS policy tomorrow, what change would you recommend first?
Introduce awareness modules into cardiac rehab pathways and start tracking return-to-work metrics alongside clinical outcomes like VO₂max or blood pressure.
Why did you choose this slide-to-slide structure for your poster?
It mirrors the systematic review process—starting with rationale, method, and inclusion criteria, before ending with findings and future directions. This builds a story and reflects academic rigour.
Why is your poster minimalistic rather than dense with text?
It’s built for conference-style attention spans: clear, icon-led visuals guide fast reading while verbal presentation expands each section. Shields et al. (2018) also emphasized clarity when presenting cost outcomes.
What would be the ideal study to follow up on your review?
A large-scale UK longitudinal RCT combining CR + awareness vs. standard care, measuring productivity over 6–12 months, ideally including cost-effectiveness analysis.
If you had access to unlimited data, what variable would you track to prove productivity gains?
Time to return-to-work (RTW)
Absenteeism reduction (sick days)
Self-reported workplace function
Plus employer performance reviews pre- and post-rehab
What theoretical framework underpins why awareness might impact behaviour?
The Health Belief Model: suggests individuals take health action when they perceive risk + benefits and receive cues to act. Awareness campaigns increase perceived susceptibility, encouraging CR attendance and long-term adherence.
What’s the weakest part of your review — and how do you defend it?
Possible variation in how “productivity” is measured across studies.
Defence: This was anticipated, so the review uses narrative synthesis to handle variability (as in Mulchandani et al., 2019). Also, common outcome themes (absenteeism, return-to-work) allow partial comparison.
How would you respond if someone said “your study is too broad”?
I’d say breadth is strategic: while some studies isolate CR or awareness, real-world recovery is multifactorial. My scope reflects how interventions work in practice, not just theory.
How does this poster reflect your long-term vision as a cardiologist?
I see cardiology as not just treating the heart but helping patients reclaim their lives, including work, identity, and independence. This review bridges clinical recovery with life recovery.
If you were presenting this to NHS England or NICE tomorrow, what’s your one-sentence pitch?
This review shows that integrating cardiac rehab and health awareness improves not just heart health, but helps patients return to work — saving the NHS money while restoring productivity across the UK
What was the publication year and main finding of Zack et al.’s (2022) study on post-MI return to work?
Published in 2022
RCT showing case-management cardiac rehab improved return-to-work rates
Long-term employment maintained in post-MI patients
Clinical Rehabilitation journal
How does Latino & Tafuri (2024) indirectly support the need for your review?
Study linked physical activity to cognitive functioning
Focused on older adults, not working-age
No workplace or CVD rehab link
Highlights a gap in applying these findings to productivity
Explain how Mulchandani et al. (2019) adds context but misses your core research question.
Assessed workplace physical activity’s effect on cardio-metabolic health
Found improvements in general health
Did not assess return-to-work or productivity outcomes
Supports health link, but not work performance
Why does Ojo et al. (2018) fail to cover your research scope?
Studied treadmill desks, sit-stand desks
Focus: productivity and ergonomics
Lacks health awareness or cardiac rehab component
Non-specific to CVD or return-to-work
What’s the strongest policy justification for your systematic review?
CVD = top cause of long-term work absence (Calitz et al., 2021)
Review fills NHS gap in linking rehab to economic/work outcomes
Supports cost-effective allocation of rehab funding (Shields et al., 2018)
Name 4 databases you searched and why each was included.
PubMed: gold standard for medical/rehab literature
Cochrane: filters RCTs, high-quality evidence
Scopus: citation chaining, academic breadth
Google Scholar: grey literature, broader scope
Why is PRISMA useful even if the study is still in progress?
Demonstrates rigorous, structured approach
Shows paper screening transparency
Visual engagement on poster
Helps defend the scope of studies included/excluded
How do you justify using multiple quality assessment tools (Jadad, Downs & Black, Pedro)?
Tailors quality assessment to study design
RCTs → Jadad
Observational → Downs & Black
Intervention/Physio → Pedro
Flexibility increases overall rigor and accuracy
If asked about conflicting findings in included studies, what would you say?
I will assess quality using scoring tools
I expect high-quality studies to show more consistent results
Summary table will help identify why inconsistencies exist (e.g., setting, design, sample)
This is key to my discussion section
Why did you exclude studies on elderly populations?
Focus is on working-age adults (18–65)
Productivity and return-to-work not relevant for retirees
Ensures relevance to NHS workforce and employment policy
What will your final results section contain (once review is complete)?
A summary table (Ref | Participants | Method | Results | Conclusion)
Visual comparison of effectiveness across studies
Identification of trends and gaps
Possibly categorized by intervention type or setting
How does your review align with NHS Long-Term Plan or economic goals?
Targets rehab-based workforce re-integration
Supports reduced readmissions + economic productivity
Bridges health outcomes with economic outcomes — cost-effective care
What makes your Boolean search strategy systematic?
Built from MeSH terms and prior systematic reviews
Combined intervention, setting, and outcome (e.g. “cardiac rehab” AND “return to work”)
Applied consistently across 4 databases
Used filters and variations for precision
What types of interventions are included under ‘cardiac rehab’ in your review?
Supervised aerobic training
Strength/resistance training
Multidisciplinary case management
Return-to-work goal setting
Lifestyle education & behaviour support
Examples: Zack et al. (2022) used case-management rehab to improve RTW
What counts as a ‘health awareness’ intervention in your review?
Workplace campaigns on CVD risk factors
Digital or printed educational materials
Behavioural change prompts
Seminars or lifestyle coaching
Self-monitoring tools (e.g., heart rate awareness)
What does the PRISMA diagram tell us about the transparency of your method?
Tracks paper flow from identification → inclusion
Shows:
75 initial records
40 duplicates removed
24 full-text reviewed
~9 currently included
Highlights rigorous exclusion criteria application
Keeps review reproducible and audit-friendly
What are the most common study designs in your included pool?
RCTs (Zack et al., 2022; Shields et al., 2018)
Quasi-experimental
Observational cohort
Mixed-method qualitative + quantitative
Each scored differently in quality appraisal (Jadad, Downs & Black, PEDro)
Why didn’t you focus solely on return-to-work as your outcome?
Return-to-work ≠ full productivity
Also measured:
Absenteeism duration
Self-reported performance
Task efficiency
Provides more robust picture of intervention effectiveness
What are some unmeasured variables you’d want in future studies?
Sector-specific recovery (manual vs. desk jobs)
Psychosocial factors (motivation, burnout)
Supervisor/employer perspectives
Socioeconomic background (impact on RTW likelihood)
CR session adherence rates
Explain how you controlled for publication bias.
Used Google Scholar to capture grey literature (Piasecki et al., 2018)
Backward referencing for older foundational studies
Forward referencing for newer citations
Multi-database approach reduces overreliance on high-impact journals
What did Shields et al. (2018) find regarding CR cost-effectiveness?
Cost per QALY ranged from $1,065–$71,755
CR reduced hospital readmissions
CR improved RTW rates
Reinforces CR as a sound NHS investment
Review builds on this by adding productivity to the equation
What was Zack et al. (2022)’s intervention and result?
Intervention: Case-managed rehab post-myocardial infarction
Population: MI patients returning to work
Outcome: Faster and more sustained return-to-work
Design: Randomised Controlled Trial
Journal: Clinical Rehabilitation
Why do some studies get scored on Downs & Black and others on PEDro?
Downs & Black: Used for observational or mixed-method studies
PEDro: Suited to exercise/physio interventions
Ensures scoring reflects design-specific strengths/limitations
How does Latino & Tafuri (2024) show the limits of general PA studies?
Looked at older adults only
Focused on cognition, not productivity
No CR or work-related outcomes measured
Highlights the need for age- and context-specific research (like yours)
What’s one reason studies like Ojo et al. (2018) fail to influence NHS rehab policy?
Focused on ergonomic environments, not medical rehab
Measured productivity without health linkage
Too far removed from CVD pathways
NHS needs data that links clinical recovery → occupational reintegration
What’s your future research recommendation based on gaps found?
Conduct UK-based longitudinal RCTs
Compare standard care vs. CR + awareness
Track: return-to-work, productivity, absenteeism, QOL
Ideally stratified by job sector and rehab type
Economic analysis embedded to inform NHS commissioning
What outcome measure did Zack et al. (2022) focus on in their RCT?
Return-to-work and sustained employment after MI
Used case-management rehab as intervention
Proved long-term RTW success post-MI
Published in Clinical Rehabilitation
Why was Ojo et al. (2018) excluded from your final inclusion list?
Focused on active workstations
Productivity ≠ post-CVD recovery
No health intervention (e.g., CR or awareness)
Not relevant to cardiac populations
What key gap did Mulchandani et al. (2019) miss?
Focused on cardio-metabolic markers
No analysis of work performance or return-to-work
Supports physical benefit, not economic reintegration
Give one real-world application of your systematic review.
NHS cardiac rehab programs could integrate RTW pathways + awareness education
Target funding based on expected productivity gains
Guide commissioners on broader return-on-investment
What’s the theoretical basis for linking awareness to behaviour?
Health Belief Model
People act when they perceive risk + benefits
Awareness = cue to action → increased rehab adherence
How did you define “working-age adults”? Why?
Aged 18–65
Productivity, employment, absenteeism = only relevant in this bracket
Retirement removes economic relevance
What is your review’s practical contribution to health economics?
Links intervention outcomes (CR, awareness) to economic endpoints
Adds productivity to cost-effectiveness (cf. Shields et al., 2018)
Helps allocate resources beyond clinical outcomes
Why include both supervised and unsupervised CR?
Real-world CR varies by setting
Unsupervised (e.g., home-based) → more accessible
Both can impact RTW if paired with awareness
Give one example of citation chaining improving your review.
Found Zack et al. (2022) through forward citation from Shields et al.
Wasn’t caught in Boolean search
Demonstrates value of forwards referencing
What does “narrative synthesis” mean in your method?
Describes, compares, and critiques studies without pooled stats
Ideal when outcome measures vary
Maintains rigour with a thematic and tabulated approach
Name 3 productivity outcomes you tracked.
Return-to-work time
Absenteeism rate (sick leave)
Self-reported work performance or task efficiency
Why did you choose a hybrid narrative + table approach for results?
Table gives visual comparison (Ref | Sample | Method | Outcome)
Narrative explains patterns, gaps, strengths
Together = clear, analytical, academically strong
Why is your review UK-focused?
NHS needs context-specific evidence
Rehab delivery varies internationally
Most existing studies = US/Europe with private systems
Fills UK-specific policy gap
What would be your dream study design for follow-up research?
UK RCT
CR + awareness vs. standard care
12-month follow-up
RTW, absenteeism, QOL, cost-benefit analysis
Stratified by job sector
