Usefulness and engagement with a guided workbook intervention (WorkPlan) to support work related goals among cancer survivors

Abstract

BackgroundReturning to work after cancer is associated with improved physical and psychological functioning, but managing this return can be a challenging process. A workbook based intervention (WorkPlan) was developed to support return-to-work among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to explore how participants using the workbook engaged with the intervention and utilised the content of the intervention in their plan to return-to-work.MethodsAs part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial, 23 participants from the intervention group were interviewed 4-weeks post intervention. Interviews focussed on intervention delivery and data was analysed using Framework analysis.ResultsParticipants revealed a sense of empowerment and changes in their outlook as they transitioned from patient to employee, citing the act of writing as a medium for creating their own return-to-work narrative. Participants found the generation of a return-to-work plan useful for identifying potential problems and solutions, which also served as a tool for aiding discussion with the employer on return-to-work. Additionally, participants reported feeling less uncertain and anxious about returning to work. Timing of the intervention in coordination with ongoing cancer treatments was crucial to perceived effectiveness; participants identified the sole or final treatment as the ideal time to receive the intervention.ConclusionsThe self-guided workbook supports people diagnosed with cancer to build their communication and planning skills to successfully manage their return-to-work. Further research could examine how writing plays a role in this process.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN56342476. Retrospectively registered 14 October 2015.

Return to Work Interventions for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and a Methodological Critique

“…The initial search returned 2419 records, of which 34 (among them, two articles identified through reference lists and authors’ names) were retained for full-text analysis. Finally, 10 articles [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] were included in this systematic review without disagreement (i.e., inter-judge agreement = 100%). Figure 1 presents a flow-diagram of the research article selection process.…”

“…The majority of the interventions developed in these studies did not specifically address one cancer location ( n = 7 out of 10; [35,36,37,39,40,41,42]). Nevertheless, more than 50% of the patients recruited in these studies were breast and gynecological cancer patients.…”

A return-to-work intervention protocol directed at cancer patients (self-assessment, tailored information & lifestyle management for returning to work among cancer patients, START): A multi-center, randomized controlled trial

“…Previous RTW interventions have mainly targeted patients that have completed treatment or were receiving treatment [ [35] , [36] , [37] ]. The timing of enrollment into intervention and duration of intervention have been identified as important factors in designing RTW interventions for patients with lower back pain [ 38 ].…”

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK

“…The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research was used to guide the presentation of the qualitative analyses. Findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses are presented concurrently, although fuller details of the methodology for the interviews and of the qualitative findings have been reported elsewhere 34…”