Mary Stergiou-Kita1,2,3,4, Cheryl Pritlove5,6, Dwayne van Eerd7,8, Linn D Holness9,10,11, Bonnie Kirsh12,13, Andrea Duncan12, Jennifer Jones6,13. 1. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca. 2. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca. 3. Institute of Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca. 4. Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca. 5. School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Institute of Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 9. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 10. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada. 11. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 12. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. 13. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With improvements in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, the number of persons surviving cancer and staying at or returning to work is increasing. While workplace accommodations optimize workers' abilities to participate in the workforce, there has been little in-depth investigation of the types of accommodations reported to have been provided to cancer survivors and the processes relevant to ensuring their successful implementation. METHODS: We employed an exploratory qualitative method and conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with three groups: (i) cancers survivors (n = 16), (ii) health/vocational service providers (n = 16), and (iii) employer representatives (n = 8) to explore return to work and accommodation processes, successes, and challenges. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Four types of accommodations were recommended: (1) graduated return to work plans and flexible scheduling, (2) modification of work duties and performance expectations, (3) retraining and supports at the workplace, and (4) modification of the physical work environment and/or the provision of adaptive aids/technologies. Processes relevant to ensuring effective accommodations included: (1) developing knowledge about accommodations, (2) employer's ability to accommodate, (3) negotiating reasonable accommodations, (4) customizing accommodations, and (5) implementing and monitoring accommodation plans. Accommodation challenges included: (1) survivors' fears requesting accommodations, (2) developing clear and specific accommodations, (3) difficult to accommodate jobs, and (4) workplace challenges, including strained pre-cancer workplace relationships, insufficient/inflexible workplace policies, employer concerns regarding productivity and precedent setting, and limited modified duties. CONCLUSIONS: Accommodations need to be customized and clearly linked to survivors' specific job demands, work context, and available workplace supports. Survivors need to feel comfortable disclosing the need for accommodations. Ongoing communication and monitoring are required to ensure accommodations are implemented and changes made to the return to work plan as required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The provision of appropriate workplace accommodations can enhance survivors' abilities to stay or return to work.
PURPOSE: With improvements in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, the number of persons surviving cancer and staying at or returning to work is increasing. While workplace accommodations optimize workers' abilities to participate in the workforce, there has been little in-depth investigation of the types of accommodations reported to have been provided to cancer survivors and the processes relevant to ensuring their successful implementation. METHODS: We employed an exploratory qualitative method and conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with three groups: (i) cancers survivors (n = 16), (ii) health/vocational service providers (n = 16), and (iii) employer representatives (n = 8) to explore return to work and accommodation processes, successes, and challenges. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Four types of accommodations were recommended: (1) graduated return to work plans and flexible scheduling, (2) modification of work duties and performance expectations, (3) retraining and supports at the workplace, and (4) modification of the physical work environment and/or the provision of adaptive aids/technologies. Processes relevant to ensuring effective accommodations included: (1) developing knowledge about accommodations, (2) employer's ability to accommodate, (3) negotiating reasonable accommodations, (4) customizing accommodations, and (5) implementing and monitoring accommodation plans. Accommodation challenges included: (1) survivors' fears requesting accommodations, (2) developing clear and specific accommodations, (3) difficult to accommodate jobs, and (4) workplace challenges, including strained pre-cancer workplace relationships, insufficient/inflexible workplace policies, employer concerns regarding productivity and precedent setting, and limited modified duties. CONCLUSIONS: Accommodations need to be customized and clearly linked to survivors' specific job demands, work context, and available workplace supports. Survivors need to feel comfortable disclosing the need for accommodations. Ongoing communication and monitoring are required to ensure accommodations are implemented and changes made to the return to work plan as required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The provision of appropriate workplace accommodations can enhance survivors' abilities to stay or return to work.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Cancer survivors; Employment supports; Return to work; Workplace accommodations
Authors: Deborah S Main; Carolyn T Nowels; Tia A Cavender; Martine Etschmaier; John F Steiner Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Nancy M Nachreiner; Rada K Dagher; Patricia M McGovern; Beth A Baker; Bruce H Alexander; Susan Goodwin Gerberich Journal: AAOHN J Date: 2007-07
Authors: Amanda E Young; Radoslaw Wasiak; Richard T Roessler; Kathryn M McPherson; J R Anema; Mireille N M van Poppel Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2005-12
Authors: A G E M de Boer; J H A M Verbeek; E R Spelten; A L J Uitterhoeve; A C Ansink; T M de Reijke; M Kammeijer; M A G Sprangers; F J H van Dijk Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sara Paltrinieri; Stefania Fugazzaro; Lucia Bertozzi; Maria Chiara Bassi; Martina Pellegrini; Massimo Vicentini; Elisa Mazzini; Stefania Costi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Erin E Kent; Timothy S McNeel; Katherine S Virgo; Jennifer Swanberg; J Kathleen Tracy; Matthew P Banegas; Xuesong Han; Jin Qin; K Robin Yabroff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506