Validation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 in cancer patients

Objective The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ), measuring the percentage of time a worker has difficulties in meeting the work demands for a given health state, has shown strong reliability and validity in various populations with different chronic conditions. The present study aims to validate the WRFQ in working cancer patients. Methods A validation study of the WRFQ 2.0 was conducted, using baseline data from the longitudinal Work Life after Cancer study. Structural validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and discriminant validity (hypothesis testing) were evaluated. Results 352 working cancer patients, most of them diagnosed with breast cancer (48%) and 58% in a job with mainly non-manual tasks, showed a mean WRFQ score of 78.6 (SD = 17.1), which means that they had on average difficulties for 78.6% of the time they spent working. Good internal consistency (alpha = 0.96) and acceptable to good fit for both the four and five-factor model (CFA) was found. The WRFQ distinguished between cancer patients reporting good vs. poor health (80.3 vs. 73.0, p = 0.001), low vs. high fatigue (82.0 vs. 72.2, p <0.001), no vs. clinical depression (80.4 vs. 58.8, p <0.001) and low vs. high cognitive symptoms (86.1 vs. 64.7, p <0.001). Conclusions The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure work functioning in working cancer patients. Further psychometric research on responsiveness is needed to support its use in health practice

Type of cancer treatment and cognitive symptoms in working cancer survivors:an 18-month follow-up study

Purpose: Cognitive symptoms are reported to affect cancer survivors’ functioning at work. However, little is known about the type of cancer treatment and cognitive symptoms in working cancer survivors. We examined the longitudinal association between type of cancer treatment and cognitive symptoms in cancer survivors post return to work, and whether the course of cognitive symptoms over 18 months differed per type of cancer treatment. Methods: Data from the Dutch longitudinal “Work-Life after Cancer” study were used. The study population consisted of 330 working cancer survivors who completed questionnaires at baseline, and 6, 12, and 18 months follow-up. Cognitive symptoms were assessed with the cognitive symptom checklist-work and linked with cancer treatment data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. Results: Cancer survivors who received chemotherapy reported comparable memory symptom levels (b: − 2.3; 95% CI = − 7.1, 2.5) to those receiving locoregional treatment. Executive function symptom levels (b: − 4.1; 95% CI = − 7.8, − 0.4) were significantly lower for cancer survivors who received chemotherapy, compared with those receiving locoregional treatment. In cancer survivors who received other systemic therapy, memory (b: 0.4; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.7) and executive function symptom levels (b: 0.4; 95% CI = 0.0, 0.7) increased over time. In cancer survivors who received chemotherapy and locoregional treatment, memory and executive function symptom scores were persistent during the first 18 months after return to work. Conclusions: The contradictory finding that cancer patients receiving chemotherapy report fewer cognitive symptoms warrants further research. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Working cancer survivors may have cognitive symptom management needs irrespective of the type of cancer treatment they received

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples

Objective: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons' health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure.  Methods: Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model.  Results: The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055-0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples.  Conclusion: A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples

The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples

Objective: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons' health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure.  Methods: Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model.  Results: The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055-0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples.  Conclusion: A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples

Impact of depression on long-term outcome after renal transplantation: a prospective cohort study

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for end stage renal disease. Although there is more depression in wait-listed versus transplant patients, depression persists after transplantation. We investigated the determinants of depression in renal transplantation recipients (RTRs) and the association with cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause-mortality and graft failure. RTR were investigated between 2001 and 2003. Depression was assessed using the Depression Subscale of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90). Mortality and graft failure were recorded until May 2009. A total of 527 RTR (age, 51±12 years; 55% men) were studied; 31% of the RTR were indicated with depression. Independent variables associated with depression were medically unfit for work, proteinuria, lower physical activity level, and longer dialysis duration. During follow-up for 7.0 (6.2-7.5) years, 114 RTR (59 CV) died. In Cox regression analyses, depression was strongly associated with increased risk for CV (HR=2.12 [1.27-3.53], P=0.004) and all-cause mortality (HR=1.96 [1.36-2.84], P <0.001). Adjustments for confounders did not materially change these associations. The association with graft failure (HR=1.77 [1.01-3.10]. P=0.047) disappeared after adjustment for kidney function (P=0.6). Although our study has several limitations, including the lack of pretransplant depression status, we identified medically unfit for work, proteinuria, lower physical activity level, and longer dialysis duration as independent variables associated with depression. We furthermore found that depression is associated with CV and all-cause mortality in RT