Search

Objective Work is an important aspect of everyday life. This remains true for those living with and beyond cancer. Less is known about how the meaning of work may change over the cancer journey, the needs of the individual in response to changes and how healthcare professionals and employing organisations can meet these needs. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of work after treatment for breast cancer in a group of professional working women within the UK. Methods This article presents an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of the experiences of 15 professional women diagnosed with breast cancer. Results We discuss these women’s journey from (1) rethinking the meaning of work to (2) making decisions about work ability and advice on work to (3) transitioning back in to the workplace and the value of continued engagement with employer. Discussion The findings from this study demonstrate the complex interplay between living with cancer, treatment decisions and work. This study highlights two key areas for inclusion in practice: (1) support from Healthcare Professionals and judgements of functional ability and work ability and (2) the role of line managers in managing cancer and work.

UK healthcare policy for improving cancer outcomes supports participation of patients in care decisions with clinicians. Consultation Planning, Recording and Summarising (CPRS) has shown evidence of increasing patient decision self-efficacy, reducing uncertainty, and regret of decisions. This is the first trial of CPRS within the colorectal cancer population and delivered over serial medical consultations.This randomised controlled trial compared usual care to the addition of CPRS over consecutive oncology consultations with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in Edinburgh, Scotland. The study primarily evaluated patients' perception of their decision self-efficacy, preparation for decision-making, decisional conflict, and decisional regret, with secondary measures of anxiety and depression.Compared with usual care, overall, the intervention group reported significantly higher decision self-efficacy (P = 0.001) and preparation for decision-making (P 0.001) and significantly lower decisional conflict (P = 0.018) and regret (P = 0.039). The repeated intervention patients felt significantly better prepared for each consultation (P 0.05); reported higher DSE before (P = 0.05) and after (P = 0.031) consultation one, and after consultation three (P = 0.004); and reported lower decisional conflict after consultation two (P = 0.007). Analyses comparing groups over time on decisional variables and anxiety and depression were underpowered because of attrition.Among colorectal cancer patients, CPRS was associated with decisional benefits before and after each consultation and 3 months after the last consultation. It appears that CPRS patients began their first medical consultation on a better trajectory but did not widen the gap over time. More research is needed on the benefits of CPRS being administered once or consecutively.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about long-term physical activity (PA) maintenance in those with chronic widespread pain (CWP) following an exercise intervention. This study examined PA over time to identify the existence and characteristics of subgroups following distinct PA trajectories.METHODS: Data come from individuals with CWP who took part in a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, receiving either exercise or both exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy treatment. Information, including self-report PA, was collected at baseline recruitment, immediately post-intervention, 3, 24 and 60+ month post-treatment. Analyses were conducted on 196 men and women with ≥ 3 PA data points. Group-based trajectory modelling was used to identify latent PA trajectory groups and baseline characteristics (e.g., demographics, pain, self-rated health, fatigue, coping-strategy use and kinesiophobia) of these groups.RESULTS: The best fitting model identified was one with three trajectories: "non-engagers" (n = 32), "maintainers" (n = 144) and "super-maintainers" (n = 20). Overall, mean baseline PA levels were significantly different between groups (non-engagers: 1.1; maintainers: 4.6; super-maintainers: 8.6, p < 0.001) and all other follow-up points. Non-engagers reported, on average, greater BMI, higher disabling chronic pain, poorer self-rated health, physical functioning, as well as greater use of passive coping strategies and lower use of active coping strategies.CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individuals with CWP receiving exercise as part of a trial were identified as long-term PA maintainers. Participants with poorer physical health and coping response to symptoms were identified as non-engagers. For optimal symptom management, a stratified approach may enhance initiation and long-term PA maintenance in individuals with CWP.SIGNIFICANCE: Chronic pain can be a major barrier to engaging in exercise, a popular self-management strategy. Our findings identify three distinct long-term physical activity trajectories for individuals receiving the same exercise intervention. This suggests an approach by health care providers which identifies individuals who would benefit from additional support to enhance initiation and long-term physical activity maintenance could deliver better outcomes for such patients.

We wish to thank the GPs involved in this study for their valuable time and participation, and Dr Heather Morgan for her methodological advice.

There is a growing body of evidence on the importance of work following a diagnosis of cancer and the need to provide better information, advice and related support to patients on work engagement. The aim of this study was to better understand the nature of those needs and to identify better ways to meet these for those with a urological cancer. The focus was on the issues that were common to three key stakeholder groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in North East Scotland: 12 individuals with kidney, bladder or prostate cancer, 10 healthcare providers and 10 managers from large organisations. Five key themes emerged from the Framework Analysis: perceived importance of work engagement; decision-making: treatment, work and cancer; roles and responsibilities; education and training; information, advice and support resources. The data confirmed that work engagement is important to those with urological cancer. It also made clear that the current provision of information and advice could be improved. Any such interventions should involve all three key stakeholder groups with greater clarity on their respective roles and responsibilities. Finally, any new system would be best integrated with existing care provision and supported by adequate education and training of those involved.