Anneke Ullrich1, Hilke M Rath2, Ullrich Otto3, Christa Kerschgens4, Martin Raida5, Christa Hagen-Aukamp6, Corinna Bergelt2. 1. Center for Psychosocial Medicine, Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. a.ullrich@uke.de. 2. Center for Psychosocial Medicine, Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Rehabilitation Clinics Hartenstein GmbH, Clinic Quellental, Bad Wildungen, Germany. 4. Vivantes Rehabilitation Clinic GmbH, Berlin, Germany. 5. HELIOS Rehabilitation Clinic Bergisch-Land, Wuppertal, Germany. 6. Niederrhein Rehabilitation Clinic, Korschenbroich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Approximately 60% of patients are able to work following a cancer diagnosis. The return-to-work (RTW) process after disability can be conceptualized as a multi-phase construct. This study investigated RTW outcomes throughout the RTW process among survivors of prostate cancer (PC) attending a cancer rehabilitation measure. METHODS: The study was based on a sample of 837 employed PC survivors enrolled in a longitudinal multicenter study. Data was collected at the beginning of the rehabilitation measure, at the end and at 12-month follow-up by means of self-report questionnaires. We compared outcomes with regard to age (<60 and ≥60 years) and socio-economic status (SES; lower, middle, higher) using t tests or univariate ANOVA for metrical and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: In the off-work phase, most survivors reported positive expectations regarding future work, including responsiveness of their work environment. Nevertheless, one fourth intended to apply for a disability pension. At 12-month follow-up, the RTW rate was 87% and 62% when applying more conservative criteria of RTW. Among survivors who had returned to work, most reported stability of the work situation. Survivors with lower SES showed least favorable outcomes throughout the RTW process, while older age was less consistently of negative impact. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors reported many favorable RTW outcomes, but low SES might be a barrier at various stages of the RTW process. Thus, special attention must be paid to the role of social inequalities during rehabilitation and work reintegration to help survivors managing the RTW process.
PURPOSE: Approximately 60% of patients are able to work following a cancer diagnosis. The return-to-work (RTW) process after disability can be conceptualized as a multi-phase construct. This study investigated RTW outcomes throughout the RTW process among survivors of prostate cancer (PC) attending a cancer rehabilitation measure. METHODS: The study was based on a sample of 837 employed PC survivors enrolled in a longitudinal multicenter study. Data was collected at the beginning of the rehabilitation measure, at the end and at 12-month follow-up by means of self-report questionnaires. We compared outcomes with regard to age (<60 and ≥60 years) and socio-economic status (SES; lower, middle, higher) using t tests or univariate ANOVA for metrical and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: In the off-work phase, most survivors reported positive expectations regarding future work, including responsiveness of their work environment. Nevertheless, one fourth intended to apply for a disability pension. At 12-month follow-up, the RTW rate was 87% and 62% when applying more conservative criteria of RTW. Among survivors who had returned to work, most reported stability of the work situation. Survivors with lower SES showed least favorable outcomes throughout the RTW process, while older age was less consistently of negative impact. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors reported many favorable RTW outcomes, but low SES might be a barrier at various stages of the RTW process. Thus, special attention must be paid to the role of social inequalities during rehabilitation and work reintegration to help survivors managing the RTW process.
Entities:
Keywords:
Oncology; Prostate cancer; Psycho-oncology; Rehabilitation; Return-to-work; Social inequality
Authors: Amanda E Young; Richard T Roessler; Radoslaw Wasiak; Kathryn M McPherson; Mireille N M van Poppel; J R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2005-12
Authors: Radoslaw Wasiak; Amanda E Young; Richard T Roessler; Kathryn M McPherson; Mireille N M van Poppel; Johannes R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2007-10-11
Authors: Kathleen Oberst; Cathy J Bradley; Joseph C Gardiner; Maryjean Schenk; Charles W Given Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Michael Feuerstein; Briana L Todd; Michal C Moskowitz; Gina L Bruns; Mallori R Stoler; Thomas Nassif; Xinhua Yu Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sigrun Dahl; Eivind A S Steinsvik; Alv A Dahl; Jon Håvard Loge; Milada Cvancarova; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 4.089
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: Anneke Ullrich; Hilke Maria Rath; Ullrich Otto; Christa Kerschgens; Martin Raida; Christa Hagen-Aukamp; Corinna Bergelt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-08-15 Impact factor: 3.603