Long-term work retention after treatment for cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: Almost half of people diagnosed with cancer are working age. Survivors have increased risk of unemployment, but little is known about long-term work retention. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed work retention and associated factors in long-term cancer survivors. Methods: We searched Medline/Pubmed, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL for studies published 01/01/2000–08/01/2019 reporting work retention in adult cancer survivors ≥ 2 years post-diagnosis. Survivors had to be in paid work at diagnosis. Pooled prevalence of long-term work retention was estimated. Factors associated with work retention from multivariate analysis were synthesized. Results: Twenty-nine articles, reporting 21 studies/datasets including 14,207 cancer survivors, were eligible. Work retention was assessed 2–14 years post-diagnosis. Fourteen studies were cross-sectional, five were prospective, and two contained both cross-sectional and prospective elements. No studies were scored as high quality. The pooled estimate of prevalence of long-term work retention in cancer survivors working at diagnosis was 0.73 (95%CI 0.69–0.77). The proportion working at 2–2.9 years was 0.72; at 3–3.9 years 0.80; at 4–4.9 years 0.75; at 5–5.9 years 0.74; and 6+ years 0.65. Pooled estimates did not differ by cancer site, geographical area, or study design. Seven studies assessed prognostic factors for work retention: older age, receiving chemotherapy, negative health outcomes, and lack of work adjustments were associated with not working. Conclusion: Almost three-quarters of long-term cancer survivors working at diagnosis retain work. Implications for Cancer Survivors: These findings are pertinent for guidelines on cancer survivorship care. Professionals could focus support on survivors most likely to have poor long-term work outcomes

Enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients, development of an intervention and design of a randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Compared to healthy controls, cancer patients have a higher risk of unemployment, which has negative social and economic impacts on the patients and on society at large. Therefore, return-to-work of cancer patients needs to be improved by way of an intervention. The objective is to describe the development and content of a work-directed intervention to enhance return-to-work in cancer patients and to explain the study design used for evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: Development and content of the intervention The work-directed intervention has been developed based on a systematic literature review of work-directed interventions for cancer patients, factors reported by cancer survivors as helping or hindering their return-to-work, focus group and interview data for cancer patients, health care professionals, and supervisors, and vocational rehabilitation literature. The work-directed intervention consists of: 1) 4 meetings with a nurse at the treating hospital department to start early vocational rehabilitation, 2) 1 meeting with the participant, occupational physician, and supervisor to make a return-to-work plan, and 3) letters from the treating physician to the occupational physician to enhance communication. Study design to evaluate the intervention The treating physician or nurse recruits patients before the start of initial treatment. Patients are eligible when they have a primary diagnosis of cancer, will be treated with curative intent, are employed at the time of diagnosis, are on sick leave, and are between 18 and 60 years old. After the patients have given informed consent and have filled out a baseline questionnaire, they are randomised to either the control group or to the intervention group and receive either care as usual or the work-directed intervention, respectively. Primary outcomes are return-to-work and quality of life. The feasibility of the intervention and direct and indirect costs will be determined. Outcomes will be assessed by a questionnaire at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: This study will provide information about the effectiveness of a work-directed intervention for cancer patients. The intention is to implement the intervention in normal care if it has been shown effective. Trial registration: NTR165

Supplement: "Localization and broadband follow-up of the gravitational-wave transient GW150914" (2016, ApJL, 826, L13)

This Supplement provides supporting material for Abbott et al. (2016a). We briefly summarize past electromagnetic (EM) follow-up efforts as well as the organization and policy of the current EM follow-up program. We compare the four probability sky maps produced for the gravitational-wave transient GW150914, and provide additional details of the EM follow-up observations that were performed in the different bands

Characteristics of national registries for occupational diseases: international development and validation of an audit tool (ODIT)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background-</p> <p>The aim of the study was to develop quality indicators that can be used for quality assessment of registries of occupational diseases in relation to preventive policy on a national level. The research questions were: 1. Which indicators determine the quality of national registries of occupational diseases with respect to their ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy? 2. What are the criteria that can distinguish low quality from high quality?</p> <p>Methods-</p> <p>First, we performed a literature search to assess which output of registries can be considered appropriate for preventive policy and to develop a set of preliminary indicators and criteria. Second, final indicators and criteria were assessed and their content validity was tested in a Delphi study, for which experts from the 25 EU Member States were invited.</p> <p>Results-</p> <p>The literature search revealed two different types of information output to be appropriate for preventive policy: monitor and alert information. For the evaluation of the quality of the monitor and alert function we developed ten indicators and criteria. Sixteen of the twenty-five experts responded in the first round of the Delphi study, and eleven in the second round. Based on their comments, we assessed the final nine indicators: the completeness of the notification form, coverage of registration, guidelines or criteria for notification, education and training of reporting physicians, completeness of registration, statistical methods used, investigation of special cases, presentation of monitor information, and presentation of alert information. Except for the indicator "coverage of registration" for the alert function, all the indicators met the preset requirements of content validity.</p> <p>Conclusion-</p> <p>We have developed quality indicators and criteria to evaluate registries for occupational diseases on the ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy on a national level. Together, these indicators form a tool which can be used for quality improvement of registries of occupational diseases.</p