BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend rehabilitative measures to alleviate dis- turbances resulting from cancer and its treatment. To give cancer survivors further assistance in getting back to work, work-related medical rehabilitation is currently being tested in Germany. In this cluster-randomized, multicenter trial, we studied the efficacy of work-related medical rehabilitation compared with conventional medical rehabilitation (trial no. DRKS00007770 in the German Clinical Trials Registry). METHODS: A total of 484 cancer survivors of working age who were candidates for rehabilitation were recruited and assigned at random to either the intervention group (IG; work-related medical rehabilitation) or the control group (CG). The primary end- point was self-assessed function in a role one year after the end of rehabilitation, as evaluated with the health-related quality of life questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30). Further endpoints included symptom and function scales, subjective ability to work, coping with illness, and return to work. Neither the medical personnel nor the subjects were blinded. RESULTS: One year after the end of rehabilitation, data from 379 subjects who par- ticipated in the last follow-up survey were evaluated. The intervention and control groups did not differ significantly either in the primary endpoint of role function (IG = 60.8 vs. CG = 57.6 out of a maximum of 100 points; p = 0.204) or in any of the secondary endpoints. A last observation carried forward analysis yielded com- parable results. At 12 months, 28.5% of the subjects in the IG and 25.3% of those in the CG were still unable to work. CONCLUSION: This study did not reveal any significant clinically relevant advantage of work-related medical rehabilitation at one year. Future studies should determine whether a second period of rehabilitation might be helpful and whether selected subjects might benefit from the assistance of case managers beyond the period of rehabilitation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend rehabilitative measures to alleviate dis- turbances resulting from cancer and its treatment. To give cancer survivors further assistance in getting back to work, work-related medical rehabilitation is currently being tested in Germany. In this cluster-randomized, multicenter trial, we studied the efficacy of work-related medical rehabilitation compared with conventional medical rehabilitation (trial no. DRKS00007770 in the German Clinical Trials Registry). METHODS: A total of 484 cancer survivors of working age who were candidates for rehabilitation were recruited and assigned at random to either the intervention group (IG; work-related medical rehabilitation) or the control group (CG). The primary end- point was self-assessed function in a role one year after the end of rehabilitation, as evaluated with the health-related quality of life questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30). Further endpoints included symptom and function scales, subjective ability to work, coping with illness, and return to work. Neither the medical personnel nor the subjects were blinded. RESULTS: One year after the end of rehabilitation, data from 379 subjects who par- ticipated in the last follow-up survey were evaluated. The intervention and control groups did not differ significantly either in the primary endpoint of role function (IG = 60.8 vs. CG = 57.6 out of a maximum of 100 points; p = 0.204) or in any of the secondary endpoints. A last observation carried forward analysis yielded com- parable results. At 12 months, 28.5% of the subjects in the IG and 25.3% of those in the CG were still unable to work. CONCLUSION: This study did not reveal any significant clinically relevant advantage of work-related medical rehabilitation at one year. Future studies should determine whether a second period of rehabilitation might be helpful and whether selected subjects might benefit from the assistance of case managers beyond the period of rehabilitation.
Authors: S Nolte; G Liegl; M A Petersen; N K Aaronson; A Costantini; P M Fayers; M Groenvold; B Holzner; C D Johnson; G Kemmler; K A Tomaszewski; A Waldmann; T E Young; M Rose Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Mariska De Wit; Bedra Horreh; Joost G Daams; Carel T J Hulshof; Haije Wind; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.295