Return to work of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of intervention studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast cancer management has improved dramatically in the past three decades and as a result, a population of working age women is breast cancer survivor. Interventions for breast cancer survivors have shown improvements in quality of life and in physical and psychological states. In contrast, efforts aimed at stimulating re-employment and return-to-work interventions for breast cancer survivors have not kept pace. The objective of this review was to study the effects and characteristics of intervention studies on breast cancer survivors in which the outcome was return to work.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), Medline, Ovid, EMBASE and PsychInfo were systematically searched for studies conducted between 1970 to February 2007. Intervention studies for female breast cancer survivors that were focused on return to work were included.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our search strategy identified 5219 studies. Four studies out of 100 potentially relevant abstracts were selected and included 46–317 employed women who had had mastectomy, adjuvant therapy and rehabilitation, with the outcome return to work. The intervention programs focused on improvement of physical, psychological and social recovery. Although a substantial percentage (between 75% to 85%) of patients included in these studies returned to work after rehabilitation, it is not clear whether this proportion would have been lower for patients without counseling or exercise, or any other interventions, as three out of four studies did not include a comparison group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most important finding of this review is the lack of methodologically sound intervention studies on breast cancer survivors with the outcome return to work. Using evidence from qualitative and observational studies on cancer and the good results of intervention studies on return to work programs and vocational rehabilitation, return to work interventions for breast cancer survivors should be further developed and evaluated.</p

The Working After Cancer Study (WACS): a population-based study of middle-aged workers diagnosed with colorectal cancer and their return to work experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of middle-aged working individuals being diagnosed with cancer is increasing and so too will disruptions to their employment. The aim of the Working After Cancer Study is to examine the changes to work participation in the 12 months following a diagnosis of primary colorectal cancer. The study will identify barriers to work resumption, describe limitations on workforce participation, and evaluate the influence of these factors on health-related quality of life.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>An observational population-based study has been designed involving 260 adults newly-diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2010 and September 2011 and who were in paid employment at the time they were diagnosed. These cancer cases will be compared to a nationally representative comparison group of 520 adults with no history of cancer from the general population. Eligible cases will have a histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer and will be identified through the Queensland Cancer Registry. Data on the comparison group will be drawn from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. Data collection for the cancer group will occur at 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, with work questions also asked about the time of diagnosis, while retrospective data on the comparison group will be come from HILDA Waves 2009 and 2010. Using validated instruments administered via telephone and postal surveys, data will be collected on socio-demographic factors, work status and circumstances, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for both groups while the cases will have additional data collected on cancer treatment and symptoms, work productivity and cancer-related HRQoL. Primary outcomes include change in work participation at 12 months, time to work re-entry, work limitations and change in HRQoL status.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will address the reasons for work cessation after cancer, the mechanisms people use to remain working and existing workplace support structures and the implications for individuals, families and workplaces. It may also provide key information for governments on productivity losses.</p> <p>Study Registration</p> <p>Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry No. <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611000530921.aspx">ACTRN12611000530921</a></p

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

Quality of life and home enteral tube feeding: a French prospective study in patients with head and neck or oesophageal cancer

A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the impact of home enteral tube feeding on quality of life in 39 consecutive patients treated for head and neck or oesophageal cancer at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. Patients were taken as their own controls. Quality of life was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire, and the EORTC H&N35 and OES24 specific questionnaires. The feeding technique tolerance was evaluated using a questionnaire specifically developed for this study. Two evaluations were made, the first a week after hospital discharge (n = 39) and the second 3 weeks later (n = 30). Overall, the global health status/quality of life scale score slightly improved; among symptoms, scale scores that significantly improved (P< 0.05) concerned constipation, coughing, social functioning and body image/sexuality. The physical feeding technique tolerance was acceptable while the technique was psychologically less tolerated with two-thirds of the patients longing to have the tube removed. Onethird of the patients was also uncomfortable about their body image. Home enteral tube feeding was responsible for not visiting family or close relations in 15% of patients, and not going out in public in 23%. We conclude that home enteral tube feeding is a physically well accepted technique although a substantial proportion of patients may experience psychosocial distress. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig