BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients and survivors experience impairments in their ability to work as a result of diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature demonstrates favorable return-to-work rates, there is a lack of intervention studies that have sought to enhance reemployment and return-to-work outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of an intervention designed to offer brief tailored information on work ability during treatment to colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: Thirteen employed colorectal cancer patients were recruited to test the feasibility of the intervention. Participants were provided with an educational leaflet and a face-to-face return-to-work consultation. This included advice and guidance on managing symptoms at work, communication with employer, and information on work ability during and after treatment. This was tailored according to work type (manual/nonmanual). RESULTS: Most participants found key aspects of the intervention useful. In particular, information and advice on the impact of treatment upon work ability were considered most valuable. Although levels of work ability and well-being did not change during the intervention, there were trends of improvement in the data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the content of this intervention could aid return to work. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Most participants felt that specialist cancer nurses and consultants were best placed to deliver return-to-work interventions. Although cancer nurses provide patients with a significant amount of information at diagnosis and treatment, our findings suggest that raising employment matters early on could help identify the most suitable time to deliver a return-to-work intervention.
BACKGROUND: Many cancerpatients and survivors experience impairments in their ability to work as a result of diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature demonstrates favorable return-to-work rates, there is a lack of intervention studies that have sought to enhance reemployment and return-to-work outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of an intervention designed to offer brief tailored information on work ability during treatment to colorectal cancerpatients. METHODS: Thirteen employed colorectal cancerpatients were recruited to test the feasibility of the intervention. Participants were provided with an educational leaflet and a face-to-face return-to-work consultation. This included advice and guidance on managing symptoms at work, communication with employer, and information on work ability during and after treatment. This was tailored according to work type (manual/nonmanual). RESULTS: Most participants found key aspects of the intervention useful. In particular, information and advice on the impact of treatment upon work ability were considered most valuable. Although levels of work ability and well-being did not change during the intervention, there were trends of improvement in the data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the content of this intervention could aid return to work. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Most participants felt that specialist cancer nurses and consultants were best placed to deliver return-to-work interventions. Although cancer nurses provide patients with a significant amount of information at diagnosis and treatment, our findings suggest that raising employment matters early on could help identify the most suitable time to deliver a return-to-work intervention.
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Marcia Grant; Christopher Wendel; Joanna E Bulkley; Carmit K Mcmullen; Andrea Altschuler; Larissa Kf Temple; Lisa J Herrinton; Robert S Krouse Journal: Perm J Date: 2018
Authors: M H W Frings-Dresen; A G E M de Boer; A C G N M Zaman; K M A J Tytgat; J H G Klinkenbijl; F C den Boer; M A Brink; J C Brinkhuis; D J Bruinvels; L C M Dol; P van Duijvendijk; P H J Hemmer; B Lamme; O J L Loosveld; M M Mok; T Rejda; H Rutten; A Schoorlemmer; D J Sonneveld; L P S Stassen; R P Veenstra; A van de Ven; E R Velzing Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-06
Authors: A G E M de Boer; D J Bruinvels; K M A J Tytgat; A Schoorlemmer; J H G Klinkenbijl; M H W Frings-Dresen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: AnneClaire G N M Zaman; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Monique H W Frings-Dresen; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Christina M Stapelfeldt; Merete Labriola; Anders Bonde Jensen; Niels Trolle Andersen; Anne-Mette H Momsen; Claus Vinther Nielsen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.295