Sietske J. Tamminga

Return-to-work interventions integrated into cancer care: a systematic review

Objectives The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the content of interventions focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer. Furthermore, the effect of the interventions on return to work was assessed in studies reporting return to work. Methods A literature search was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles that described a work-directed intervention focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer were included. The content of the work-directed part of the interventions was assessed based on two criteria for content analysis: 1. does the setting fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care? 2. Does the intervention target work ability and physical workload? For studies reporting return-to-work outcomes, the return-to-work rates were assessed. For studies that used a control group the ORs and the 95% CIs were calculated. Results Twenty-three articles describing 19 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported return-to-work outcomes of which four used a control group. Only three interventions aimed primarily at enhancing return to work or employment status. The most frequently reported work-directed components were encouragement, education or advice about work or work-related subjects (68%), vocational or occupational training (21%), or work accommodations (11%). One intervention fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care and five interventions enhanced work ability or decreased physical workload. The rate of return to work ranged from 37% to 89%. In one of the four controlled studies the intervention increased return to work significantly and in the other studies the results were insignificant. Conclusions Only few interventions are primarily aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with cancer and most do not fit the shared care model involving integrated cancer care. Future studies should be developed with well-structured work-directed components that should be evaluated in randomised controlled trials.

Enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients, development of an intervention and design of a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundCompared to healthy controls, cancer patients have a higher risk of unemployment, which has negative social and economic impacts on the patients and on society at large. Therefore, return-to-work of cancer patients needs to be improved by way of an intervention. The objective is to describe the development and content of a work-directed intervention to enhance return-to-work in cancer patients and to explain the study design used for evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention.Development and content of the interventionThe work-directed intervention has been developed based on a systematic literature review of work-directed interventions for cancer patients, factors reported by cancer survivors as helping or hindering their return-to-work, focus group and interview data for cancer patients, health care professionals, and supervisors, and vocational rehabilitation literature. The work-directed intervention consists of: 1) 4 meetings with a nurse at the treating hospital department to start early vocational rehabilitation, 2) 1 meeting with the participant, occupational physician, and supervisor to make a return-to-work plan, and 3) letters from the treating physician to the occupational physician to enhance communication.Study design to evaluate the interventionThe treating physician or nurse recruits patients before the start of initial treatment. Patients are eligible when they have a primary diagnosis of cancer, will be treated with curative intent, are employed at the time of diagnosis, are on sick leave, and are between 18 and 60 years old. After the patients have given informed consent and have filled out a baseline questionnaire, they are randomised to either the control group or to the intervention group and receive either care as usual or the work-directed intervention, respectively. Primary outcomes are return-to-work and quality of life. The feasibility of the intervention and direct and indirect costs will be determined. Outcomes will be assessed by a questionnaire at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after baseline.DiscussionThis study will provide information about the effectiveness of a work-directed intervention for cancer patients. The intention is to implement the intervention in normal care if it has been shown effective.Trial registrationNTR1658

Effectiveness of a hospital-based work support intervention for female cancer patients - a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Objective One key aspect of cancer survivorship is return-to-work. Unfortunately, many cancer survivors face problems upon their return-to-work. For that reason, we developed a hospital-based work support intervention aimed at enhancing return-to-work. We studied effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care for female cancer patients in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Methods Breast and gynaecological cancer patients who were treated with curative intent and had paid work were randomised to the intervention group (n = 65) or control group (n = 68). The intervention involved patient education and support at the hospital and improvement of communication between treating and occupational physicians. In addition, we asked patients occupational physician to organise a meeting with the patient and the supervisor to make a concrete gradual return-to-work plan. Outcomes at 12 months of follow-up included rate and time until return-to-work (full or partial), quality of life, work ability, work functioning, and lost productivity costs. Time until return-to-work was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results Return-to-work rates were 86% and 83% (p = 0.6) for the intervention group and control group when excluding 8 patients who died or with a life expectancy of months at follow-up. Median time from initial sick leave to partial return-to-work was 194 days (range 14–435) versus 192 days (range 82–465) (p = 0.90) with a hazard ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64–1.6). Quality of life and work ability improved statistically over time but did not differ statistically between groups. Work functioning and costs did not differ statistically between groups. Conclusion The intervention was easily implemented into usual psycho-oncological care and showed high return-to-work rates. We failed to show any differences between groups on return-to-work outcomes and quality of life scores. Further research is needed to study which aspects of the intervention are useful and which elements need improvement. Trial Registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR) 1658

Quality of Working Life Issues of Employees with a Chronic Physical Disease: A Systematic Review

Purpose To assess issues that contribute to the Quality of Working Life (QWL) of employees with a chronic physical disease. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Experiences and perceptions during the working life of employees with a chronic physical disease were extracted and synthesized into issues that contributed to their QWL. We organized these synthesized QWL issues into higher order themes and categories with qualitative data analysis software. Results From a total of 4,044 articles identified by the search, 61 articles were included. Data extraction and data synthesis resulted in an overview of 73 QWL issues that were classified into 30 themes. The following five categories of themes were identified: (1) job characteristics with issues such as job flexibility and work-site access; (2) the social structure and environment containing issues about disclosure, discrimination, misunderstanding, and awareness by employers or colleagues; (3) organizational characteristics with issues such as requesting work accommodations; (4) individual work perceptions including issues about enjoyment and evaluating work or life priorities; and (5) effect of the disease and treatment including issues about cognitive and physical health and work ability. Conclusion This systematic review offers an extensive overview of issues that might contribute to the QWL of employees with a chronic physical disease. This overview may function as a starting point for occupational support, such as monitoring and evaluating the QWL of employees with a chronic physical disease during return-to-work and work continuation processes.

Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to determine reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) among cancer survivors.MethodsA cohort of 53 cancer survivors completed the WLQ and other questionnaires at baseline, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up. We assessed internal consistency, intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, floor- and ceiling effects and compared the WLQ with other constructs. For responsiveness, we assessed the following anchor-based measures: minimal important change (MIC) versus smallest detectable change (SDC) and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operation characteristic (ROC).ResultsWe found sufficient reproducibility at group level but not at individual level as the MIC (4.0) exceeded SDC at group level (3.1) but not at individual level (18.0). There was no indication of systematic bias or proportional bias. The internal consistency and construct validity for the WLQ and its subscales were sufficient or slightly less than sufficient. There was a floor effect for one subscale, but there were no ceiling effects. Responsiveness was sufficient with an AUC of a ROC of 0.65.ConclusionsThe WLQ is reproducible, valid, and responsive for use at group level among cancer survivors but not sufficiently reproducible for use at individual level.

Perceived employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors: A systematic review of employers' and survivors' perspectives

To identify employer‐related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors from the perspective of both employers and cancer survivors, and to synthesise these perceived barriers and facilitators to understand their perceived consequences.

Advice about Work-Related Issues to Peers and Employers from Head and Neck Cancer Survivors

Purpose The purpose of this exploratory and descriptive study is to contribute to the sparse return-to-work literature on head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. Interview participants were asked to reflect upon their work-related experience with cancer by answering two specific questions: (1) What advice would you give someone who has been newly diagnosed with head and neck cancer? (2) What advice would you give to employers of these people? Methods Data were gathered through 10 individual semi-structured in-depth interviews with HNC clinic patients at a regional cancer center’s head and neck clinic in Ontario, Canada. A constant comparative method of theme development was used. Codes identified in and derived from the data were discussed by research team members until consensus was reached. Codes with similar characteristics were grouped together and used to develop overarching themes. Results Work-related advice for peers focused on personal self-care and interactions within workplaces. Work-related advice to employers focused on demonstrating basic human values as well as the importance of communication. Discussion The study results suggest HNC clinic patients should be proactive with employers and help to set reasonable expectations and provide a realistic plan for work to be successfully completed. HNC clinic patients should develop communication skills to effectively disclose their cancer and treatment to employers. Conclusions In this exploratory study, HNC clinic patients’ advice was solution-focused underscoring the importance of self-care and pro-active communication and planning with employers. Employers were advised to demonstrate core human values throughout all phases of the work disability episode beginning at diagnosis.

Quality of working life of cancer survivors: development of a cancer-specific questionnaire

PurposeThe aim of this study was to generate, and select quality of working life issues for the development of an initial version of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS).MethodsQuality of working life issues were generated through focus groups with cancer survivors and oncological occupational physicians, and interviews with employers, supervisors, and organization officers. A selection of these quality of working life issues was made based on relevance and importance by conducting an online questionnaire among the cancer survivors and oncological occupational physicians. Researchers formulated the issues into items for the QWLQ-CS.ResultsA total of 24 cancer survivors, six oncological occupational physicians and 11 employers, supervisors, and organization officers participated. The 222 quality of working life issues identified through the focus groups, interviews, and literature were converted into an online questionnaire. Cancer survivors (N = 20) found 44 issues not relevant or important with respect to their quality of working life. The researchers reviewed the remaining 178 issues and formulated them into 102 items classified by five categories: work perception, job characteristics, the social structure and environment, organizational characteristics, and the effect of the disease and treatment.ConclusionsThe initial version of the QWLQ-CS exists out of 102 items which cover the experiences and perceptions of cancer survivors in the work environment. All items were indicated by working cancer survivors as relevant and important.Implications for cancer survivorsThis initial version of the QWLQ-CS may increase awareness of the potential problems or emotional difficulties working cancer survivors face during the work continuation process.

Employers' experience of employees with cancer: trajectories of complex communication

PurposeRemaining in paid work is of great importance for cancer survivors, and employers play a crucial role in achieving this. Return to work (RTW) is best seen as a process. This study aims to provide insight into (1) Dutch employers’ experiences with RTW of employees with cancer and (2) the employers’ needs for support regarding this process.MethodsThirty employer representatives of medium and large for-profit and non-profit organizations were interviewed to investigate their experiences and needs in relation to employees with cancer. A Grounded Theory approach was used.ResultsWe revealed a trajectory of complex communication and decision-making during different stages, from the moment the employee disclosed that they had been diagnosed to the period after RTW, permanent disability, or the employee’s passing away. Employers found this process demanding due to various dilemmas. Dealing with an unfavorable diagnosis and balancing both the employer’s and the employee’s interests were found to be challenging. Two types of approach to support RTW of employees with cancer were distinguished: (1) a business-oriented approach and (2) a care-oriented approach. Differences in approach were related to differences in organizational structure and employer and employee characteristics. Employers expressed a need for communication skills, information, and decision-making skills to support employees with cancer.ConclusionsThe employers interviewed stated that dealing with an employee with cancer is demanding and that the extensive Dutch legislation on RTW did not offer all the support needed. We recommend providing them with easily accessible information on communication and leadership training to better support employees with cancer.Implications for cancer survivors• Supporting employers by training communication and decision-making skills and providing information on cancer will contribute to improving RTW support for employees with cancer.• Knowing that the employer will usually be empathic when an employee reveals that they have been diagnosed with cancer, and that the employer also experiences difficulties and dilemmas, might lower the threshold to discuss wishes regarding disclosure, communication, and work issues.• The interests of employer and employee in relation to RTW are interrelated; both have responsibility and a role to play, and are in need of support.

Enhancing the Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Development and Feasibility of the Nurse-Led eHealth Intervention Cancer@Work

Background It is important to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors with an appropriate intervention, as cancer survivors experience problems upon their return to work but consider it an essential part of their recovery. Objective The objective of our study was to develop an eHealth intervention to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors and to test the feasibility of the eHealth intervention with end users. Methods To develop the intervention we 1) searched the literature, 2) interviewed 7 eHealth experts, 3) interviewed 7 cancer survivors, 2 employers, and 7 occupational physicians, and 4) consulted experts. To test feasibility, we enrolled 39 cancer survivors, 9 supervisors, 7 occupational physicians, 9 general physicians and 2 social workers and gave them access to the eHealth intervention. We also interviewed participants, asked them to fill in a questionnaire, or both, to test which functionalities of the eHealth intervention were appropriate and which aspects needed improvement. Results Cancer survivors particularly want information and support regarding the possibility of returning to work, and on financial and legal aspects of their situation. Furthermore, the use of blended care and the personalization of the eHealth intervention were preferred features for increasing compliance. The first version of the eHealth intervention consisted of access to a personal and secure website containing various functionalities for cancer survivors blended with support from their specialized nurse, and a public website for employers, occupational physicians, and general physicians. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible. We adapted it slightly by adding more information on different cancer types and their possible effects on return to work. Conclusions A multistakeholder and mixed-method design appeared useful in the development of the eHealth intervention. It was challenging to meet all end user requirements due to legal and privacy constraints. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible, although implementation in daily practice needs to be subject of further research. ClinicalTrial Dutch Trial Register number (NTR): 5190; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5190 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hm4WQJqC)