Search

Background: Despite wide recognition of the necessity of an integrative maintenance and return to work (RTW) program for cancer survivors, no such program has been described in the literature., Aims: To examine a working model of an integrative multidisciplinary health care approach for promoting RTW, using the Delphi method., Methods: A working model for promoting cancer survivors' RTW by oncology health professionals was subjected to two rounds of evaluation by an expert panel in accordance with the Delphi research method. Twenty-six international experts in oncology (social workers, nurses, psychologists, physicians, and cancer patients) participated in the first round and 16 participated in the second round., Results: The mean score of the working model's applicability was 6.07 (SD = 1.07, range = 1-7). The model outlines in detail an integrative approach for promotion of RTW according to two axes: the oncology health professionals' role and the timeline axis featuring four stages of oncology treatment and follow-up., Conclusions: Our proposed model addresses the need for an integrated program that may increase the rate of RTW and improve the quality of life of cancer survivors. The model should be subjected to further evaluation, especially its adaptability to different health systems in different countries., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: This study explored employer's perspectives on (1) their experience of good practice related to workers diagnosed with cancer and their return to work (RTW), and (2) their perceived needs necessary to achieve good practice as reported by employers from nine separate countries., Methods: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were held in eight European countries and Israel with two to three employers typically including HR managers or line managers from both profit and non-profit organisations of different sizes and sectors. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory/thematic analysis approach was completed., Results: Employers' experience with RTW assistance for workers with cancer appears to be a dynamic process. Results indicate that good practice includes six phases: (1) reacting to disclosure, (2) collecting information, (3) decision-making related to initial actions, (4) remaining in touch, (5) decision-making on RTW, and (6) follow-up. The exact details of the process are shaped by country, employer type, and worker characteristics; however, there was consistency related to the need for (1) structured procedures, (2) collaboration, (3) communication skills training, (4) information on cancer, and (5) financial resources for realizing RTW support measures., Conclusions: Notwithstanding variations at country, employer, and worker levels, the employers from all nine countries reported that good practice regarding RTW assistance in workers with a history of cancer consists of the six phases above. Employers indicate that they would benefit from shared collaboration and resources that support good practice for this human resource matter., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Further research and development based on the six phases of employer support as a framework for a tool or strategy to support workers with a history of cancer across countries and organisations is warranted.

Purpose: Employers play an important role in the return-to-work (RTW) of cancer survivors (CSs), and recently a substantial number of qualitative studies from the employers' perspective have emerged. This meta-synthesis aims to systematically review these qualitative studies regarding employers' experiences with CSs' RTW., Methods: Five electronic databases were searched from inception to January 2024 to identify the studies. Three researchers conducted quality assessment of included. Subsequent, we performed thematic integration of the included studies with the NVivo 11 software., Results: Thirteen qualitative studies were included, and 16 topics were finally extracted and summarized into seven categories to form three integrated themes: employers' perspective on facilitators and obstacles for CSs' RTW, employers' response including negative emotion and positive behavior, and employers' need resources from different aspects., Conclusion: CSs' RTW is influenced by many factors; the support employers need is also extensive and complex. Employers need more support beyond healthcare., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the Readiness for Return-to-Work (RRTW) of patients with head and neck tumours and to analyse the relationships among self-efficacy, disease uncertainty, psychosocial adaptation, and RRTW in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 259 HNC patients with a discharge length of ≥1 month at a tertiary hospital in Liaoning Province. The research tools included a self-designed general information questionnaire, the Readiness for Return-to-Work (RRTW) Scale, the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (MUIS), and the Self-Reporting Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS-SR). Descriptive statistical analysis, the rank sum test, Spearman correlation analysis, and ordered multiple and dichotomous logistic regression analyses were used., Results: The overall RRTW among HNC patients was low (41.9%). HNC patients who did not return to work were mainly in the precontemplation stage (38.1%) and contemplation stage (29.9%). HNC patients who returned to work were mainly in the active maintenance stage (64.2%). Children's status (OR = 0.218, 95% CI 0.068-0.703), self-efficacy (OR = 1.213, 95% CI 1.012-1.454), unpredictability (OR = 0.845, 95% CI 0.720-0.990), occupational environment (OR = 0.787, 95% CI 0.625-0.990), and family environment (OR = 0.798, 95% CI 0.643-0.990) influence the RRTW of HNC patients who have not returned to work. Educational level (OR = 62.196, 95% CI 63.307-68.567), children's status (OR = 0.058, 95% CI 1.004-2.547), self-efficacy (OR = 1.544, 95% CI 3.010-8.715), unpredictability (OR = 0.445, 95% CI 1.271-2.280), and psychological status (OR = 0.340, 95% CI 1.141-2.401) influence the RRTW of HNC patients who have returned to work., Conclusion: Children's status, education level, self-efficacy, illness uncertainty, and psychosocial adjustment are crucial to RRTW. This study provides a theoretical basis for formulating intervention measures aimed at improving the RRTW of patients., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: The number of working-age people recovering from cancer is gradually on the rise; yet, cancer survivors have higher rates of unemployment compared to other employees. Cancer survivors returning to work cope with symptoms of fatigue, distress, cognitive difficulties and physical limitations. The present article addresses the supervisor-cancer survivor dyad as the unit of analysis, in an attempt to identify the dyadic resources that underlie the coping of the supervisor-employee unit with return to work. Materials and methods: In-depth, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 12 dyads of cancer survivors and their supervisors, representing successful return to work, followed by comparative content analysis of the data. Results: Four themes were revealed: (1) Congruent supervisor-cancer survivor views regarding personalized/standard management of cancer survivors' returning to work; (2) Return to work as a team work approach; (3) Commitment and persistence in the face of obstacles, and (4) Supervisor and cancer survivor mutual appreciation. Conclusions: Joint coping of supervisors and cancer survivors with the difficulties of the return to work process is perceived to contribute significantly to the success of return to work. Training of cancer survivors and supervisors conducted by rehabilitation professionals regarding aspects of the orientation toward return to work is suggested. Implication for rehabilitation Cancer survivors have different preferences regarding standard versus exceptional organizational treatment following return to work. Organizational acknowledgment of the cancer survivor's value for the organizations supports cancer survivors' return to work. Cancer survivors can benefit from a sense of responsibility and involvement in decision making regarding the process of return to work.

Purpose Returning to work is highly beneficial for many cancer survivors. While research has documented the significance of healthcare professionals in the process of return to work (RTW), very little is known about those professionals' views regarding their responsibility for RTW. The purpose of the present study was to identify factors that predict the extent to which healthcare professionals view involvement in the RTW of cancer survivors as part of their role. Methods In a cross-sectional design, questionnaires measuring attitudes regarding personal role responsibility for RTW, team role responsibility for RTW and benefits of RTW were administered to 157 healthcare professionals who care for working-age cancer survivors: oncologists, occupational physicians, family physicians, oncology nurses, oncology social workers, and psychologists. Results Both belief in the benefits of RTW, and the view that RTW is the team responsibility of healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors, are positively related to viewing RTW as part of the responsibilities of one's personal professional role. Moderation analysis indicated that perception of team responsibility for RTW moderates the effect of the perceived benefits of RTW, such that the perception of benefits is significantly associated with personal role responsibility only when there is a low level of perceived team responsibility. Conclusions Issues related to RTW should be routinely included in basic and advanced training of healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of working-age cancer survivors, to increase awareness of this aspect of cancer survivors' well-being and position RTW as part of healthcare professionals' role responsibilities.

Objective: Health care professionals play a significant role in cancer survivors' decisions regarding return to work (RTW). While there is ample research about cancer survivors' views on RTW, little is known about the views of the professionals who accompany them from diagnosis to recovery. The study explores professionals' perceptions of cancer survivors in the RTW context, as well as their views about their own role in the process., Methods: In-depth interviews (N = 26) with professionals specializing in physical or mental health working with working-age cancer survivors: occupational physicians, oncologists, oncology nurses, social workers, and psychologists specializing in oncology., Results: An analysis of the interviews revealed 2 prominent perceptual dimensions among professionals: the cancer survivor's motivation to RTW and understanding illness-related implications upon returning to work. The 2 dimensions imply the following 4 groups of cancer survivors in the RTW context, as viewed by health professionals: the "realist," the "enthusiast," the "switcher," and the "worrier." The results also indicate that social workers and psychologists view their role in terms of jointly discussing options and implications with the cancer survivor, while physicians and nurses view their role more in terms of providing information and suggestions., Conclusions: The training of professionals should increase awareness of the assumptions they make about cancer survivors in regard to RTW. Additionally, training might elaborate professionals' view of their role in the interaction with cancer survivors regarding RTW., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose Considering worker's perspective, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to document the meaning of the experience of recognition in the return to work (RTW) process of work after a sick leave due to a common mental disorder (CMD) and (2) to investigate the phenomenon of recognition for workers in the process of RTW after a sick leave due to a CMD, by evaluating the presence or absence of marks of recognition from salient RTW stakeholders stemming from different systems. Methods The Relational Caring Inquiry phenomenological method was used to explore the meaning of recognition during the return-to-work process and marks of recognition in a group of 20 workers who returned to their employment after a sick leave due to a CMD. In depth individual interviews were conducted with each participant. Results The definition of recognition that emerged from workers experiencing the RTW process is related to the behaviours and attitudes of various stakeholders, stemming from the work, health, insurance and social systems that allow them to feel appreciated, valued and respected, throughout the RTW process. Recognition was most often described as showing support, trust, respect for recovery and pace, and providing positive feedback. Conclusion The findings from this study could serve as guidelines in organizations regarding the RTW process, and in particular clarifying the roles and actions that different stakeholders could take in the workplace to stimulate expressions of meaningful recognition., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Return to work (RTW) is important for employees who have survived cancer, yet it is challenging for employers. Small enterprises (< 100 employees) might have limited resources to facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. The purpose of this article is to examine how such employers engage in the support of RTW and to uncover their needs., Methods: Eleven owners and one HR manager representing 12 small enterprises (various sectors) were interviewed regarding their experience with RTW of employees surviving cancer. We conducted a thematic analysis with aspects of Grounded Theory., Results: The characteristics of being a small enterprise (i.e. informal practical arrangements, working as a family, working with limited resources and people) related to four concerns experienced by these employers (concerns about the employer's enterprise; the employee's cancer and recovery; RTW and work adjustments; and about communication). In line with these concerns, employers need information on rights and obligations, RTW arrangements and communication skills during RTW guidance., Conclusions: In small enterprises, employers have generally close relationships with their employees, which means that support is gladly provided when employees are diagnosed with cancer. They do however have limited financial means to facilitate RTW and workplace adjustments. They therefore perceive long-term sickness and RTW as a major financial risk for the company.

The article focuses on a study related to the management of employees by employers affected by cancer and mentions about return to work (RTW) following treatment can be problematic for cancer survivors. It reports the outcome from a review of the published literature on factors related to the current employer management of employed cancer survivors.

Objective: There is a need for tailored interventions aimed at promoting the sustainable return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. As managers have a primary role in supporting cancer survivors to return to work, a better understanding of the "cancer survivor‐manager" dyadic process is much needed. The aim of this paper is to introduce the cancer survivor‐manager dyad in the context of RTW of cancer survivors, and to inform future studies by presenting theoretical, conceptual, and methodological considerations. Conclusions: Different theoretical, conceptual, and methodological aspects are addressed that open new perspectives concerning the cancer survivor‐manager dyad. Among the theoretical and conceptual aspects, we highlight the interest of developing dyadic coping models specific to the cancer survivor‐manager dyad. This would allow the conceptualization of their interpersonal dynamics and to frame interventions aimed at supporting cancer survivors and managers. In addition, we encourage to study in more detail the quality of the relationship between the cancer survivor and manager, including its impact on work‐related outcomes of the cancer survivor. Methodologically, the actor‐partner interdependence model could be relevant to identify any interdependence in the cancer survivor‐manager dyad. We also recommend using longitudinal and prospective studies to investigate the cancer survivor‐manager dyad, as these studies are well suited to identify evolutive and dynamic aspects of the cancer survivor‐manager dyad. Lastly, we propose a recruitment strategy of the dyad by involving a trustworthy third party, to respect the ethical framework, and the privacy and voluntary choice of cancer survivors. Key points: The success of the implementation of managerial actions supporting the cancer survivor's return to work depends on the manager's and cancer survivor's willingness and ability to act as a unit.Studies focusing on the cancer survivor‐manager dyad are needed and a specific conceptual model would be useful to conceptualize the interpersonal dynamics.It is important to identify determinants of the quality of the cancer survivor‐manager relationship, and their effect on the return‐to‐work process.To study the cancer survivor‐manager dyad, the use of the actor‐partner interdependence model and prospective longitudinal studies are recommended.For the recruitment of cancer survivor‐manager dyads, it is recommended to employ a cancer survivor‐focused approach involving a trustworthy third party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with a rare cancer often face delays in their diagnostic and treatment trajectory, which may affect their work. In this study, we explored experiences and needs of: 1) patients with a rare cancer regarding return to work (RTW) and work retention, and 2) (health care) professionals (HCPs) regarding work-related support of patients with a rare cancer, throughout their disease trajectory. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with working-age patients with a rare cancer (n = 16), and HCPs (n = 9) were conducted. During the interviews, a predefined topic list was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by means of thematic analysis. In total, three themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Awareness in patients and HCPs as a first step towards work, 2) Being/becoming an expert is a tough job, and 3) Enhancing employability through early personalized guidance. Patients with a rare cancer are confronted with uncertainties regarding work, due to an overall lack of knowledge and experience with these types of cancer. Raising awareness among patients, HCPs and employers about rare cancer and its implications, and providing timely individualized, supportive occupational care are required to improve rare cancer patients' ability to work. Recognizing and paying attention to the work-related consequences of a rare cancer diagnosis and its treatment is essential to facilitate rare cancer patients' occupational rehabilitation process. Multidisciplinary collaboration and involvement of HCPs specialized in rare cancer are required to provide suitable work-related support. A personalized approach is necessary to adequately address rare cancer patients' RTW and work retention needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Interventions to support work participation in cancer survivors (CSs) have shown limited effectiveness. Applying a behavioral change framework (e.g., stages of change) could make work participation interventions for CSs more timely and tailored. We aimed to explore the application of the stages of change framework to work participation support for CSs and to generate stage-specific intervention content. Methods: Eighteen experts (e.g., occupational physicians, reintegration consultants) were individually interviewed, and three focus groups with CSs (n = 6, n = 5, n = 4) were conducted. Data were analyzed along the six work-related behavioral change stages purported by the readiness for return to work framework, which is based on the stages of change. Results: The following themes were identified: (1) pre-contemplation: emotional support and staying connected—encourage contact with the employer/colleagues; (2) contemplation: considering return to work is stressful—facilitate the deliberation process; (3) preparation self-evaluative: assess current capabilities—seek guidance from, e.g., occupational physicians; (4) preparation behavioral: planning return to work—allow for personalized solutions and encourage supervised return to work; (5) uncertain maintenance: guard against overload—train self-efficacy strategies and communication tactics; and (6) proactive maintenance: accept and prepare for the long term. Conclusions: Our results support the potential utility of tailoring CSs' work participation support along the stages of change. Implications for Cancer Survivors: We provided recommendations for intervention content and developed a stage-specific work participation intervention for CSs, the effectiveness of which will be evaluated in an upcoming randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose : To explore views of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs) on the role of GPs in work guidance of cancer patients. Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, two focus groups with GPs (N = 17) and two focus groups with OPs (N = 10) were conducted. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by data-driven analysis. Results: GPs generally indicated that they inquire about patients' occupations but do not structurally document these. GPs described offering support and advice to patients regarding their work, while other GPs stated they do not interfere with their patients' work or return to work (RTW) process. In general, GPs stated that they do not aspire a professional role in the work guidance of patients, due to lack of expertise and not having sufficient knowledge in work regulations and legislation. In contrast, OPs anticipated a proactive role from GPs concerning work guidance in cancer patients, and they expected GPs to refer cancer patients to the OP, when required. Moreover, they emphasised the importance of communication between GPs and OPs about patients' work-related problems to achieve common goals. Conclusions: GPs can contribute to cancer patients' RTW process by supporting patients, giving advice and providing referral to other health professionals. Better cooperation between GPs and OPs may improve work guidance in cancer patients. Implications for Cancer Survivors: When cancer patients with work-related issues get appropriate advice and support from GPs and referred in time to OPs, the RTW process and staying at work of cancer patients may be positively affected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Increasing cancer screening rates among working-age populations and providing employment support for employees with cancer are issues that need to be addressed in Japan. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the situation regarding cancer screening promotion and employment support for employees with cancer at business establishments and the support they seek from medical professionals regarding these issues. Methods This survey covered 1,058 business establishments and included the following items: attributes of the business establishments, cancer screening rate, support for employees to promote cancer screening, support sought by business establishments from medical professionals to promote cancer screening, presence of employees with cancer, support programs for employees with cancer, awareness of the resources available for employment support for employees with cancer, difficulties in supporting employees with cancer in the workplace, and support sought by business establishments from medical professionals in providing employment support for employees with cancer. Data analysis was primarily conducted using summary statistics. Results This study included 153 establishments. The median cancer screening rate ranged from 50.00 to 99.15. Employee support for promoting cancer screening ranged from approximately 30% to 40% for "ensuring time for screening" and from 20% to 30% for "providing full subsidies for cancer screening cost." The median screening rate for breast and cervical cancers was 50.00, and support for promoting screening was less than 30% for each. Business establishments sought support from medical professionals regarding cancer and study sessions on cancer prevention to promote cancer screening. Regarding support systems for employees with cancer, 49.7% of the establishments offered sickness benefits, and 42.5% offered paid leave on an hourly basis. Less than 10% were aware of the websites provided by public organizations regarding employment support for patients with cancer. Approximately 50% of the establishments reported difficulties regarding treatment policies and duration uncertainties. Conclusion Business establishments sought the provision of relevant knowledge and specific information to increase cancer screening rates and provide employment support for employees with cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that employees with cancer need to manage the information they provide their establishments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to assist ill and injured workers to stay-at-work or to return-to-work. Purpose The purpose of this scoping review is to identify primary care physicians' learning needs in returning ill or injured workers to work and to identify gaps to guide future research. Methods We used established methodologies developed by Arksey and O'Malley, Cochrane and adapted by the Systematic Review Program at the Institute for Work & Health. We used Distiller SR©, an online systematic review software to screen for relevance and perform data extraction. We followed the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews checklist for reporting. Results We screened 2106 titles and abstracts, 375 full-text papers for relevance and included 44 studies for qualitative synthesis. The first learning need was related to administrative tasks. These included (1) appropriate record-keeping, (2) time management to review occupational information, (3) communication skills to provide clear, sufficient and relevant factual information, (4) coordination of services between different stakeholders, and (5) collaboration within teams and between different professions. The second learning need was related to attitudes and beliefs and included intrinsic biases, self-confidence, role clarity and culture of blaming the patient. The third learning need was related to specific knowledge and included work capacity assessments and needs for sick leave, environmental exposures, disclosure of information, prognosis of certain conditions and care to certain groups such as adolescents and pregnant workers. The fourth learning need was related to awareness of services and tools. Conclusions There are many opportunities to improve medical education for physicians in training or in continuing medical education to improve care for workers with an illness or injury that affect their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation (CS-VR) of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) describes the work functioning of individuals in need of VR. We aimed to adapt the CS-VR from the perspective of cancer survivors (CSs) and stakeholders, developing a CS-VR-Onco. Methods: We held five focus groups with 17 CSs who were employed at the time of diagnosis, to discuss their work reintegration experiences. After analyzing the focus group conversations, the CS-VR-Onco was developed. During a group interview, eleven stakeholders explored barriers/facilitations in assessing the work functioning of CSs by using the CS-VR-Onco. We applied the framework method and thematic analysis. Results: For the focus groups, the CS-VR-Onco of 85 categories emerged, and the ICF chapters of Mental functions, Exercise and tolerance functions, Interpersonal interactions and relationships, Major life areas, General tasks and demands, Mobility, Support and relationships, and Attitudes were prioritized. For the group interview, stakeholders' perspectives can be synthetized into two themes: close to the lived experience and usability criteria. Stakeholders confirmed the categories of the CS-VR-Onco, a checklist that should be used through an integrated approach across multiple disciplines. Conclusions: The adapted CS-VR-Onco reflects the CSs' lived experiences of work reintegration and the factors that have influenced this process. The CS-VR-Onco was described as complete and usable through an integrated approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Being able to work improves the quality of life of patients with cancer. Much is known about the return to work process of cancer survivors. Yet, studies focusing on the experiences of patients with advanced cancer who want to return to work or stay employed are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to explore the perceptions of patients with advanced cancer regarding work resumption and work retention and the barriers and facilitators they may experience. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Patients were included if they: (1) were diagnosed with advanced cancer, (2) worked in paid employment at time of diagnosis, and (3) were currently back in paid employment or had the intention to return to paid employment. Participants were recruited through clinicians and patient organizations. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed using ATLAS.ti. Results: Fifteen patients (87% female, mean age 52 (SD 4; range 41–64)) were individually interviewed. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) holding on to normalcy, (2) high understanding and divergent expectations, (3) social discomfort calls for patient-initiated alignment, and (4) laws and regulations require patient empowerment. Conclusion: Paid employment can contribute to the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. The findings of this study might correct erroneous preconceptions about the work ability and work intention of patients with advanced cancer. Tools already developed for employers to support reintegration of patients with cancer should be further explored and translated to patients with advanced cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objectives of this study were to explore the experiences and perspectives of general and occupational health care professionals regarding work resumption and work retention of patients with advanced cancer, and to identify barriers and facilitators these professionals may encounter. Methods: A qualitative design was applied, and individual semistructured interviews were conducted. General and occupational health care professionals were eligible to participate if they were involved in the work participation guidance of patients with advanced cancer, and were recruited through the network of the research team. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically via ATLAS.ti 9. Results: Interviewees (N = 17) had various occupational backgrounds, for example, occupational physician, reintegration consultant, and general practitioner. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) Assumptions and hesitations, (2) Patient initiates stakeholder communication, (3) Role dispersion: who is in charge of what? and (4) Experience with legislation creates opportunities. Conclusion: Whereas most interviewees had positive experiences with, and/or optimistic expectations of, the work resumption and work retention of patients with advanced cancer, several barriers to the work participation guidance of these patients were identified. Suggestions for improvement include creating widespread awareness of the possibility of work participation of patients with advanced cancer and developing reintegration guidelines for advanced cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Research has indicated that managerial contact with cancer survivors during a long absence from work is related to cancer survivors' inclination to return to work. OBJECTIVE: The present study explored the roles of cancer survivors' perception of supervisor resistance to return to work (RTW) and symptom severity in the relationship between supervisor-initiated contact during the cancer survivors' absence from work and successful work sustainability (SWS). METHODS: Israeli cancer survivors (N = 149) who had been working at least 6 months after the termination of treatment completed online questionnaires. The scales measured frequency of contact, perceived supervisor resistance to RTW, SWS, and symptom severity. To test the relationship between perceived and actual resistance, a partial sample of the cancer survivors' direct supervisors (N = 49) reported their resistance to RTW of cancer survivors. RESULTS: The results show that perceived supervisor resistance mediated the relationship between supervisor-initiated contact during absence and SWS. Symptom severity moderated the negative effect of perceived supervisor resistance on SWS: The relationship was stronger for cancer survivors experiencing severe symptoms. Cancer survivors' perception of supervisor resistance to RTW was positively related to their supervisors' self-report of resistance. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the need for clear guidelines and managerial training programs regarding contact and communication with cancer survivors during long absences from work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer survivors can be at high risk of having work-related problems. Previous studies suggest that GPs could discuss work participation with cancer patients and provide guidance. The aim this study is to explore the experiences and expectations of breast cancer survivors with their GPs' role regarding guidance on work participation and return to work. Methods: A qualitative study with Dutch female breast cancer survivors was held in the Netherlands. Four focus groups with 25 participants were conducted and audio-taped. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Breast cancer survivors reported a wide range of experiences with guidance from their GPs regarding work participation. Patients who contacted their GPs with work-related issues felt listened to during the consultation. Some patients experienced very limited or no guidance, while others were intensively guided by their GPs. The guidance was provided in the form of counseling, psychosocial support, and referral to other health care professionals. When cancer patients experienced problems with reintegration in work, they expected GPs to have a supportive and referring role in work participation guidance. Conclusion: In returning to work, breast cancer survivors expect their GPs to play a supportive role, especially when they encounter difficulties in reintegrating. However, their actual experience of guidance received from their GPs varied, from none received at all, to intensive support provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to understand Canadian cancer survivors' experiences during the return-to-work (RTW) process. Methods: A prospective qualitative longitudinal design was employed using the principles of phenomenological inquiry. Cancer survivors took part in three in-depth interviews: at the end of treatment, and 3 and 9 months after the first interview. Transcripts were analyzed using constant comparative analysis, guided by the Cancer and Work model. Results: A total of 38 in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 participants. The resultant themes were: (1) supports received or desired to enable RTW; (2) others' limited understanding of the long-term impacts of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment; (3) worries and self-doubts about returning to work; and (4) changing perspectives on life and work after cancer. Conclusions: Cancer patients returning to work after treatment often experience challenges throughout the process, including varying levels of support from others and a range of ongoing effects and motivation to RTW. There is a clear gap in terms of the professional supports available to these individuals. Future research should focus on investigating how to improve both quality and accessibility of supports in a way that is personalized to the individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although family members play an important role in various aspects of coping with cancer and are significantly affected by it, little is known about their perspectives regarding return to work (RTW). This study explored attitudes and experiences of cancer survivors' family members related to cancer survivors' RTW. The present study consists of a qualitative research design, employing in‐depth semistructured interviews with first‐degree family members (N = 21) of cancer survivors who were approached through online social networks: spouses, children, parents and siblings. Grounded theory techniques were used for data analysis. Four themes emerged from the interviews: (a) the family's cautious voice in return‐to‐work decision making; (b) work–home imbalance; (c) inhibiting or promoting the effect of work on the recovery process and (d) expectations and appreciation of unconditional workplace support. The findings suggest that psychosocial and health care professionals should help family members play an active role in the decision of RTW. Professionals should also prepare family members for potential costs of RTW for the family and help them develop realistic expectations regarding workplace support of the cancer survivor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this integrative review was to explore psychosocial vulnerabilities in women after a breast cancer diagnosis that are related to their paid work. Design: The review methodology was guided by Whittemore and Knafl. The Mehnert Cancer Survivorship and Work Model provided a lens through which to view vulnerability in working women with a focus on facilitating interventions to improve both recovery and work outcomes. Data Sources: PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycNET databases were searched for English language papers published between January 2014–June 2020. Review Methods: Titles and abstracts were screened. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were then applied to full text screen of the remaining articles following PRISMA guidelines. Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. A constant comparison approach was used to systematically distil findings into categories and assess their fit within the Mehnert Model subdomains. Results: Vulnerabilities coalesced predominantly within the following subdomains: (a) changes in identity and role functioning; (b) social reintegration; (c) coping strategies; and (d) social supports. Patterns and themes within these subdomains were related both positively and negatively to form the contours of a survivor's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with quality of life related to work and breast cancer recovery. Conclusion: Overall, findings highlight the importance of employment and work environments in bolstering women's psychosocial health after a breast cancer diagnosis. Impact: Findings from this review support adapting psychosocial distress screening to include vulnerabilities relating to work life. Nurses are ideally positioned to facilitate this screening and engage clinicians in a dialogue surrounding patient's support needs due to nursing's central role on the interdisciplinary team. Nurses may also foster collective accountability for implementing ongoing multidisciplinary survivorship care plans that include a return to work component. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In this study we assessed the feasibility of recruiting colorectal cancer survivors and their employers to participate in research on returning to work after a cancer diagnosis. Methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 6 survivors and 4 employers to collect feedback on 2 recruitment approaches: 1) an employee/cancer survivor-focused approach whereby researchers obtained employer contact information directly from survivors and 2) an employer-focused approach whereby researchers interviewed employers to identify pathways to recruiting survivor-supervisor dyads. Recordings of all interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Results: Of the 6 survivor participants, 3 (50%) consented to follow up with their supervisors. One of the 3 supervisors responded but declined participation in the study. The 4 participating employers included 2 compensation/benefits managers and 2 human resources managers. Employers identified specific avenues for potential recruitment of survivor-supervisor dyads, including first obtaining organizational support for participating in this type of research. Discussion: While challenges and opportunities exist with both the employee- and the employer-focused recruitment approaches, our findings suggest that an employer-focused approach, whereby researchers obtain organizational support for the research first, may be more promising for recruiting survivor-supervisor dyads to studies on cancer and employment. Results from this study underscore the importance of gaining support from all stakeholders--from administrators to employees who are cancer survivors. Conclusion: Our study informs recruitment strategies that bring together cancer survivors and employers to improve our understanding of the barriers and facilitators of returning to work after cancer, in effort to develop interventions that mitigate employment challenges for cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Evidence shows that employers play a key role in facilitating the return to work of employees with cancer, yet little is known about the employers' experiences in settings where no policies or regulations are available to guide this process. Against this background, we aimed (1) to understand how employers experience and manage the process of having employees with cancer and (2) to explore their reflections regarding their role in returning to work. Methods Twenty employers from various types of organisations and sectors were interviewed. Inductive thematic analysis was performed using NVivo 11. Results Employers experienced having employees with cancer as a process with three distinct phases reflected in three emerging themes: disclosure of the diagnosis and absence from work; returning to work; post-returning to work. A fourth theme emphasizes the employers' reflections on how they conceive their own role. In the absence of a normative framework for dealing with employees with cancer, employers used commonsensical rules of thumb and immediate solutions based on ad-hoc decisions and were often compelled to innovate. They offered accommodations only if requested by the employee after returning to work. The return to work process was neither planned nor phased. Conclusion Employers need information and guidelines for effectively assisting employees with cancer. Better channels of communication and collaboration with health professionals are essential for more adequate support for the long-term consequences of cancer. A detailed return to work policy is required to tackle the inconsistencies in the support offered and this policy must also rethink how diagnosis disclosure takes place in Romanian organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little is known about return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors (CSs) in Central and Southern Europe. This study investigates the RTW rate of Italian CSs, describes their sick leave (SL) pattern, and explores factors affecting their RTW process.Methods: A population-based cross-sectional survey involving CSs registered at the Cancer Registry of Reggio Emilia Province (Italy) was launched in July 2016. Eligibility was restricted to individuals with first diagnosis of cancer in 2012 (stages I-III), aged 20-59, and employed at the time of diagnosis.Results: Of the 266 individuals interviewed, 140 (52.6%) were reintegrated without difficulty, 113 (42.5%) returned to work with some difficulty, and 13 did not RTW (4.9%). The majority of CSs (56%) took SL for some periods during treatment. Age > 50 years and higher income seemed to facilitate RTW (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.88 and RR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.97, respectively), while being divorced acted as a barrier compared to being married (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.04-2.01). Individuals uncertain about the type of company they were working for reported greater difficulty in RTW (RR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.03-2.72). Individuals who had undergone chemotherapy and those perceiving physical limitations had a higher risk of difficulty in the RTW process (RR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.42-2.24 and RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.25-2.02, respectively).Conclusions: Most CSs did RTW, with 2/3 combining work and treatment. However, almost half reported difficulty in RTW process. Factors affecting this process should be addressed throughout context-specific social and healthcare pathways aimed at preventing difficulties and potential job loss in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how employers and co-workers experience the return to work (RTW) process of employees undergoing cancer treatment. Methods Sixteen semi-structured individual interviews and participant observations at seven workplaces took place, involving seven employers and nine co-workers with different professions. A phenomenological-hermeneutic analytic approach was applied involving coding, identification of themes, and interpretation. Results We identified three employer themes: call for knowledge, Making decisions, and Feeling helpless. Also, three co-worker themes were identified: understanding and sympathy, extra work and burden, and Insecurity about future work tasks. Early initiated RTW, e.g. less work hours and work accommodations, did neither constitute challenges for employers nor co-workers in the beginning of the RTW process. However, when the RTW process was prolonged employers encountered difficulties in finding suitable work tasks, whereas co-workers were burdened by extra work. Conclusions Overall, cancer survivors' RTW process was welcomed and encouraged at the workplace level. However, employer and co-worker experiences suggested that RTW initiation parallel with cancer treatment raised challenges at the workplace level, when the RTW process was extended beyond the initial RTW plan; increased workload and difficulties in balancing the needs of the cancer survivor and co-workers. Mechanisms that support cancer survivors' RTW without introducing strain on co-workers should be investigated in future research. Furthermore, support for employers in their RTW management responsibilities needs to be addressed in general and in particular in future RTW interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose and methods Cancer survivors have a higher risk of adverse work outcomes such as not being able to return to work (RTW). The process of returning to work is complex as a result of the diverse stakeholders and numerous factors involved related to the employee diagnosed with cancer, the work environment, health care system, and the legal system. One of the key stakeholders is the employer, as the employer is in the position to facilitate work accommodations. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to consider opportunities regarding the role of the employer to enhance the work participation of employees with cancer. Results and conclusions We currently know little about which aspects of employer support have a positive impact on the ability of employees diagnosed with cancer to retain at work or RTW. In addition, there is a lack of interventions and tools which support employers in their management of employees diagnosed with cancer. The inclusion of employer support into the workplace can help employees diagnosed with cancer with their work retention and RTW, which is an important aspect of their quality of life and benefits the society at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Managers are considered to be main stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. However, the perspectives of cancer survivors and managers differ on what managerial actions should be taken during the RTW of cancer survivors. This difference might put effective collaboration and successful RTW at risk. Therefore, this study aims to reach consensus among managers and cancer survivors on the managerial actions to be taken during the four different RTW phases of cancer survivors (i.e., Disclosure, Treatment, RTW plan, Actual RTW).Methods: The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) was implemented with managers and cancer survivors (hereafter referred to as "experts"). An initial list of 24 actions was derived from a previous study. Firstly, for each action, fifteen experts were asked to indicate individually how important this action is per RTW phase (Likert scale from 1 - "Not important at all" to 6 - "Very important"). Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% (i.e., ≥ twelve experts) of the experts rated that action ≥5. Secondly, for each phase of the RTW process, the 15 actions with the highest percentage were discussed with eight experts during the collective consultation, except for the actions that already reached consensus. After discussion, the experts voted whether each action was important ("yes" / "no") and consensus required ≥ 87.5% (i.e., ≥ seven experts) of the experts to consider an action as important.Results: Twenty-five managerial actions were finally retained for at least one of the RTW phases, e.g., Disclosure: "respect privacy" and "radiate a positive attitude", Treatment: "show appreciation" and "allow sufficient sick leave", RTW Plan: "tailor" and "communicate", and Actual RTW: "support practically" and "balance interest".Conclusion: Cancer survivors and managers reached consensus on the importance of 25 managerial actions, distributed into each phase of the RTW process. These actions should be considered an interplay of managerial actions by different stakeholders on the part of the employer (e.g., direct supervisor, HR-manager), and should be a responsibility that is shared by these stakeholders. The collective implementation of these actions within the company will help cancer survivors feel fully supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]