Supporting participation in paid work of cancer survivors and their partners in the Netherlands:protocol of the SusTained Employability in cancer Patients and their partnerS (STEPS) multi-centre randomized controlled trial and cohort study

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)

Tailoring work participation support for cancer survivors using the stages of change: perspectives of (health care) professionals and survivors

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

Work resumption and retention in patients with advanced cancer: Experiences and perspectives of general and occupational health care professionals

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

Cancer survivors' experiences with conversations about work-related issues in the hospital setting

Objective: Early access to work-related psychosocial cancer care can contribute to return to work of cancer survivors. We aimed to explore: (a) the extent to which hospital healthcare professionals conduct conversations about work-related issues with cancer survivors, (b) whether cancer survivors experience these conversations as helpful, and (c) the possible financial implications for cancer survivors of (not) discussing their work early on. Methods: The Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations developed and conducted a cross-sectional online survey, consisting of 27 items, among cancer survivors in the Netherlands. Results: In total, 3500 survivors participated in this study (71% female; mean age (SD) 56 (11) years). Thirty-two percent reported to have had a conversation about work-related issues with a healthcare professional in the hospital. Fifty-four percent indicated that this conversation had been helpful to them. Conversations about work-related issues took place more frequently with male cancer survivors, those aged 55 years or below, those diagnosed with gynecological, prostate, breast, and hematological or lymphatic cancer, those diagnosed ≤2 years ago, or those who received their last treatment ≤2 years ago. There was no statistically significant association between the occurrence of conversations about work-related issues and experiencing the financial consequences of cancer and/or its treatment as burdensome. Conclusions: Although conversations about work-related issues are generally experienced as helpful by cancer survivors, early access to work-related psychosocial cancer care in the hospital setting is not yet systematically offered

Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of the Readiness for Return To Work questionnaire for Dutch cancer survivors

Objective: Effective interventions supporting cancer survivors in work participation are lacking, possibly due to the poor fit between interventions and cancer survivors’ needs. The ‘Readiness for Return To Work’ (RRTW) questionnaire could facilitate intervention development tailored to cancer survivors’ needs. We performed a cross-cultural translation and adaptation of this questionnaire into Dutch and pre-tested its psychometric properties among cancer survivors. Methods: Questionnaire translation and adaptation were conducted using a systematic approach of: forward translation, synthesis, backward translation, consolidation of translations with an expert committee, and pre-testing. Pre-testing consisted of interviewing 40 cancer survivors, who completed the questionnaire. Results: The translated and adapted RRTW questionnaire showed reasonable psychometric properties, that is high item-to-stage correlations and internal consistency for all RRTW stages, except for the prepared for action – self-evaluative stage. Conclusions: The translated and adapted RRTW questionnaire may be useful for tailoring interventions to support cancer survivors in returning to and maintaining at work. However, some items showed poor psychometric properties and several factors, important for work participation, are not captured, for example personal, disease-, treatment- and/or work-related characteristics. We recommend to further test the RRTW questionnaire and to use it in combination with additional measurement instruments when developing tailored work participation interventions

Experiences and perspectives of patients with advanced cancer regarding work resumption and work retention: a qualitative interview study

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

Cancer survivors and adverse work outcomes: associated factors and supportive interventions

INTRODUCTION: The number of cancer survivors in a working age is rising. An awareness of factors associated with adverse work outcomes, and of supportive interventions, is needed. SOURCES OF DATA: A narrative review of research obtained via several databases, including Medline and PsycINFO, was conducted. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: A range of factors is associated with adverse work outcomes such as prolonged sick leave, delayed return to work, disability pension and unemployment in cancer survivors. They include the cancer type and treatment, fatigue, cognitive functioning, work factors and elements of health care systems. Effective supportive interventions encompass physical and multicomponent interventions. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The role of behaviour determinants and legislative and insurance systems is unclear. It is furthermore uncertain what the optimal timing of delivering supportive interventions is. GROWING POINTS: Further focus on vulnerable groups, including specific cancer types and those with lower income, lower educational level and in precarious employment, is needed. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Recent developments are tailored and timely interventions