Return to paid work after cancer: A British experience

Amir, Ziv; Moran, Tony; Walsh, Luke; Iddenden, R; Luker, Karen A.

doi:10.1007/s11764-007-0021-2

Cited by 104 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…42 Other aspects need to be considered when organising and conducting surveys: (a) in some countries the survivor may not always be aware that he/she was diagnosed with cancer so in those situations the survivor's general practitioner or clinician must be contacted first; (b) national confidentiality laws may prevent cancer registries from contacting cancer patients; (c) if nonparticipation levels are high, the survey could provide false (biased) results. The PROFILES studies had 75-80% participation rates, 42 while other important studies in Norway, 39 the UK 32 and Ireland 33 had lower participation rates (50-55%). Getting patient organisations involved might improve participation rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, questionnaires would have to be compatible across languages and cultures. Surveys of this type have been performed in North West England (50% participation), 32 Ireland (54% participation) 33 and South Netherlands (80% participation). 34 The panel extensively examined the feasibility in collecting population-based data on quality of life of cancer patients, as this was considered an important indicator of cancer rehabilitation success.…”

Section: Indicators On Measures Of Rehabilitation Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cancer rehabilitation indicators for Europe

Baili

Hoekstra-Weebers²,

Hoof

et al. 2013

European Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known of cancer rehabilitation needs in Europe. EUROCHIP-3 organised a group of experts to propose a list of population-based indicators used for describing cancer rehabilitation across Europe. The aim of this study is to present and discuss these indicators. A EUROCHIP-3 expert panel reached agreement on two types of indicators. (a) Cancer prevalence indicators. These were proposed as a means of characterising the burden of cancer rehabilitation needs by time from diagnosis and patient health status. These indicators can be estimated from cancer registry data or by collecting data on follow-up and treatments for samples of cases archived in cancer registries. (b) Indicators of rehabilitation success. These include: return to work, quality of life, and satisfaction of specific rehabilitation needs. Studies can be performed to estimate these indicators in individual countries, but to obtain comparable data across European countries it will be necessary to administer a questionnaire to randomly selected samples of patients from population-based cancer registry databases. However, three factors complicate questionnaire studies: patients may not be aware that they have cancer; incomplete participation in surveys could lead to bias; and national confidentiality laws in some cases prohibit cancer registries from approaching patients. Although these studies are expensive and difficult to perform, but as the number of cancer survivors increases, it is important to document their needs in order to provide information on cancer control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Indicators On Measures Of Rehabilitation Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer rehabilitation indicators for Europe

Baili

Hoekstra-Weebers²,

Hoof

et al. 2013

European Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Manual work and work demanding physical efforts were also negatively associated with return to work of cancer survivors [8]. In contrast, social support and a supportive work environment facilitated return to work [8][9][10][11]. Discretion over work hours and amount of work were also positively associated with return to work of cancer survivors [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A changed attitude of patients towards work reflecting reduced importance and a decrease in work aspirations, was negatively associated with return to work after cancer [9]. One fifth of cancer patients who returned to work reported deterioration in their job satisfaction and career prospects [10]. Manual work and work demanding physical efforts were also negatively associated with return to work of cancer survivors [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Return to Work After Early-stage Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study into the Effects of Treatment and Cancer-related Symptoms

Balak¹,

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Overall, studies indicate a steady increase of return to work (RTW) from on average 40% at six months post diagnosis to 62% at 12 months, 73% at 18 months, and 89% at 24 months. Factors significantly associated with a greater likelihood of being employed or RTW include perceived employer accommodation, flexible working arrangements, counseling, training and rehabilitation services, younger age, higher education, male gender, a lower physical symptom burden, cancer remission, shorter length of sick leave, and continuity of care (7,14,17,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of employment among cancer survivors after medical rehabilitation – a prospective study

Mehnert¹,

Koch²

2012

Scand J Work Environ Health

124

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to (i) investigate cancer survivor's employment status one year after the completion of a medical rehabilitation program and (ii) identify demographic, cancer, and psychosocial, treatment-, and work-related predictors of return to work (RTW) and time until RTW.Methods A total of 1520 eligible patients were consecutively recruited on average 11 months post diagnosis and assessed at the beginning (t 0 ) (N=1148) and end of rehabilitation (t 1 ) (N=1060) and 12 months after rehabilitation (t 2 ) (N=750). Participants completed validated measures assessing functional impairments, pain, anxiety, depression, quality of life, social support, and work-related characteristics including work ability, sick leave absence, job requirements, work satisfaction, self-perceived employer accommodation, and perceived job loss. Physicians estimated the degree of cancer-entity-specific functional impairment. ResultsIn a mean time of six weeks after rehabilitation, 568 patients (76%) had returned to work. The multivariate hierarchical logistic regression analysis indicated that baseline RTW intention [odds ratio (OR) 6.22, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.98-19.51], perceived employer accommodation (OR 1.93, 95% CI 0.33-0.99), high job requirements (OR=1.84, 95% CI 1.02-3.30), cancer recurrence or progression (OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.12 -0.63), baseline sick leave absence (OR=0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.77), and problematic social interactions (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.33-0.99) emerged as significant predictors for RTW. The explained variance of the total model was Nagelkerke's R²=0.59 (P<0.001). ConclusionOur findings emphasize the high relevance of motivational factors. Occupational motivation and skepticism towards returning to work should be carefully assessed at the planning of the rehabilitation program.

show abstract

Return to paid work after cancer: A British experience

Cited by 104 publications

References 11 publications

Cancer rehabilitation indicators for Europe

Cancer rehabilitation indicators for Europe

Return to Work After Early-stage Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study into the Effects of Treatment and Cancer-related Symptoms

Predictors of employment among cancer survivors after medical rehabilitation – a prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About