Search

Objective: Providing current, evidence-based information to cancer survivors is critical for informed decision making. People diagnosed with a rare cancer report higher unmet information needs compared to common cancer survivors. However, interventions providing informational support for rare cancers are limited. Therefore, the aims of this systematic review were to identify and synthesise interventions decreasing survivors' information needs and/or improving satisfaction with information, and to explore potential components to be included in an intervention for rare cancer survivors., Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. Studies reporting an intervention targeting information needs and/or patient satisfaction with information in survivors of any cancer type were included. Data were extracted, a quality assessment performed and findings were synthesised., Results: A total of 7012 studies were identified and 34 were included in the review. Five studies targeted patients with a rare cancer type; the remaining studies included common cancer survivors. Interventions varied in relation to the mode of information provision, timing of intervention delivery, and the intervention provider. The most promising interventions included face-to-face communication and written material and were delivered by a nurse. All rare cancer studies were designed around a web-based program, but none of them improved outcomes., Conclusions: Interventions targeting information needs and/or patient satisfaction with information in rare cancer survivors are lacking. Future studies should focus on this underserved group, and successful aspects of interventions for common cancer survivors should be considered for inclusion when designing an intervention for rare cancer survivors., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Approximately onethird of cancer survivors encounter challenges reintegrating into the workforce, often experiencing involuntary unemployment and/or partial or full work disability following diagnosis and treatment. Returning to paid employment presents evident challenges due to uncertainties regarding work ability, perceived employer discrimination, and a lack of support, thereby risking social exclusion. However, interventions addressing return to paid employment among unemployed and/or work-disabled cancer survivors are scarce. Here, we describe the protocol of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), including a process and economic evaluation, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLACES (unemPLoyed cAnCEr survivors Support) intervention aimed at supporting unemployed and/or work-disabled cancer survivors returning to paid employment., Methods: A two-armed RCT with a 12-month follow-up period will be conducted. Eligible participants: (1) are of working age (18-65 years), (2) are diagnosed with cancer between 6 months and 10 years ago, (3) are unemployed and/or partially or fully work-disabled, (4) have completed cancer treatment, and (5) are seeking paid employment and are motivated to initiate work immediately. Participants will primarily be identified through the Dutch Social Security Agency and the Netherlands Cancer Registry and recruited via healthcare professionals. Participants randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 82) will receive the PLACES intervention: a tailored supported employment intervention based on the principles of Individual Placement and Support (IPS). This includes support in seeking, returning to, and maintaining paid employment. Participants allocated to the control group (n = 82) will receive care as usual. All participants will be asked to complete questionnaires, at baseline (T0), and after 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months of follow-up. The primary outcome is paid employment [yes/no]. Secondary outcomes are time until paid employment, change in working hours, work ability, quality of (working) life, and self-efficacy regarding return to work. Additionally, process and economic evaluations will be conducted., Discussion: We hypothesize that the PLACES intervention will be effective in obtaining paid employment, enhancing work ability, and improving quality of life. In addition, we expect the intervention to be cost-effective. If proven effective and cost-effective, actions should be taken to implement the intervention in usual care., Trial Registration: NCT06028048., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Many cancer survivors experience physical and/or psychosocial problems affecting return to work (RTW) and work retention. Current interventions on RTW lack evidence regarding effectiveness, while interventions for work retention are missing. Partners of cancer survivors may also experience work- and health-related outcomes; yet, these consequences are not well understood. Here, the protocol of the STEPS study is described. The study aims are to: 1) evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a rehabilitation program for RTW and work retention in cancer survivors, and 2) assess health- and work-related outcomes among cancer survivors' partners., Methods: In a multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), 236 working-age cancer survivors with an employment contract will be randomly allocated to a usual care group or an intervention group receiving a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, combining occupational therapy facilitating work retention (e.g., energy management and self-efficacy training) and reintegration consultation addressing work-related issues (e.g., RTW planning and discussing workplace or task modifications with the supervisor). Alongside the RCT, a prospective cohort study will be conducted among cancer survivors' partners (n = 267). Participants in the RCT and cohort study will be asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, and after six and 12 months, assessing work- and health-related outcomes. Generalized estimating equations will be used to assess intervention's effectiveness, compared to usual care, regarding primary (i.e., working hours per week) and secondary outcomes. Also economic and process evaluations will be performed. For the cohort study, logistic or linear regression modelling will be applied assessing work- and health-related outcomes (primary outcome: working hours) of cancer survivors' partners, and what factors predict these outcomes., Results: The study is planned to start in September 2021; results are expected in 2023., Conclusion: Compared to usual care, the STEPS intervention is hypothesized to be (cost-)effective and the intervention could be a valuable addition to standard care helping cancer survivors to sustain employment. Further, it is expected that living with a cancer survivor has a substantial impact on work and health of partners, while specific groups of partners that are at particular risk for this impact are likely to be identified., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register ( NTR;NL9094 ; 15-12-2020)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences., Methods: Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) adult cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared., Results: In total, 7343 patients (i.e., 1856 rare and 5487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p = 0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p < 0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers.

Background: Cognitive problems are common in non-central nervous system cancer survivors. These problems are perceived as an important contributor to decline in work performance and work ability. Various interventions for cognitive problems have been proposed, but effectiveness regarding work-related outcomes has not yet been established. Effective treatment options to alleviate the adverse influence of cognitive problems on work performance are needed for working cancer survivors. In this paper, we will describe the design of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial that evaluates the (cost-)effectiveness of an Internet-based cognitive rehabilitation program for occupationally active cancer survivors confronted with cognitive problems., Methods/ Design: A three-armed randomized controlled trial will be conducted, including two intervention groups (i.e., basic and extensive cognitive rehabilitation program) and one waitlist control group. In total, 261 cancer survivors (18-65 years) who have returned to work and who experience cognitive problems will be recruited. Patients with and without cognitive impairment as established in a neuropsychological assessment will be eligible; stratification will take place based on the presence of this cognitive impairment. The extensive intervention arm will contain a comprehensive training program (including psycho-education, fatigue management, and cognitive strategy training) with individual guidance (blended intervention). The basic intervention arm will contain a brief cognitive training program (including psycho-education and fatigue management) without individual guidance. The primary outcome will be accomplishment of an individually defined work-related treatment goal. Secondary outcomes include, among others, subjective cognitive functioning, work functioning, and quality of life. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0) and at 12 weeks (T1) and 26 weeks (T2) post-randomization., Discussion: About 40-50% of the cancer patients worldwide are of working age at time of diagnosis. Many of the occupationally active cancer survivors experience cognitive problems. Both from an individual and a societal perspective, it is important to sustain cancer survivors' employability. An effective treatment to alleviate the impact of cognitive decline and to improve work ability might help cancer survivors to sustain employability., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03900806 . Registered on 03 April 2019 (current status: ongoing).

Background: Sociodemographic, health- and work-related factors have been found to influence return to work in cancer survivors. It is feasible though that behavioural factors, such as expectation of being at work, could also affect work-related outcomes. Therefore, the effect of earlier identified factors and expectation of being at work on future employment status in cancer survivors was explored. To assess the degree to which these factors specifically concern cancer survivors, a comparison with heart attack survivors was made., Methods: Data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were used. Cancer and heart attack survivors of working age in the UK were included and followed up for 2 years. Baseline characteristics of both cancer and heart attack survivors were compared regarding employment status. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed in survivors at work, and the interaction between independent variables and diagnose group was assessed., Results: In cancer survivors at work (N = 159), alcohol consumption, participating in moderate or vigorous sport activities, general health and participation were univariate associated with employment status at two-year follow-up. Only fair general health (compared to very good general health) remained statistically significant in the multivariate model (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.76; p = 0.010). In heart attack survivors at work (N = 78), gender, general health and expectation of being at work were univariate associated with employment status at follow-up. Female gender (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00-0.57; p = 0.018) and high expectation of being at work (OR 10.68; 95% CI 1.23-93.92; p = 0.033) remained significant in the multivariate model. The influence of gender (p = 0.066) and general health (p = 0.020) regarding employment status was found to differ significantly between cancer and heart attack survivors., Conclusions: When predicting future employment status in cancer survivors in the UK, general health is the most relevant factor to consider. While expectation of being at work did not show any significant influence in cancer survivors, in heart attack survivors, it should not be disregarded though, when developing interventions to affect their employment status. Future research should focus on more specific measures for expectation, and additional behavioural factors, such as self-efficacy, and their effect on employment status.