Raymond Javan Chan1,2,3, Bruce Cooper4, Bogda Koczwara5, Alexandre Chan6,7, Chia Jie Tan6,7, Steven M Paul4, Laura B Dunn8, Yvette P Conley9, Kord M Kober4, Jon D Levine10, Christine Miaskowski11. 1. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Q4059, Kelvin Grove, Australia. 2. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Kelvin Grove, 4059, Australia. 3. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Services, QLD, Woolloongabba, Queensland, 4102, Australia. 4. Department of Physiological, Nursing School of Nursing, University of California, 2 Koret Way - N631Y, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0610, USA. 5. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 6. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Block S4A, Level 3, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Republic of Singapore. 7. Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Centre, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Republic of Singapore. 8. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 9. School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 10. School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 11. Department of Physiological, Nursing School of Nursing, University of California, 2 Koret Way - N631Y, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0610, USA. chris.miaskowski@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A breast cancer diagnosis has a substantial economic impact. Study aims were to evaluate for inter-individual differences in cancer's level of interference with employment and identify phenotypic and symptom characteristics associated with higher levels of interference. METHODS: Patients (n = 387) were enrolled prior to breast cancer surgery and followed for 12 months. Interference with employment was measured using a 0 (no problem) to 10 (severe problem) numeric rating scale. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to evaluate for inter-individual differences in trajectories of employment interference and characteristics associated with employment interference at enrollment and over 12 months. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 55.0 (±11.7) years and the majority underwent breast conservation surgery (80.6%). Mean employment interference score was 3.2 (±3.7). Unconditional model for employment interference demonstrated a decreasing linear trend (-.076/month). Younger age, lower income, higher pain intensity, and having an axillary lymph node dissection were associated with higher pre-surgical interference scores. Having a sentinel lymph node biopsy was associated with ongoing employment interference scores. Higher sleep disturbance scores were associated with both initial and ongoing employment interference scores. Receipt of chemotherapy, use of complementary or alternative therapies, and re-excision or mastectomy following surgery were significant time varying covariates. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to use HLM to describe inter-individual differences in the trajectories of cancer's interference with employment and associated factors prior to and for 12 months following breast cancer surgery. Patients with the identified risk factors warrant ongoing assessments of employment interference and appropriate referrals.
PURPOSE:A breast cancer diagnosis has a substantial economic impact. Study aims were to evaluate for inter-individual differences in cancer's level of interference with employment and identify phenotypic and symptom characteristics associated with higher levels of interference. METHODS:Patients (n = 387) were enrolled prior to breast cancer surgery and followed for 12 months. Interference with employment was measured using a 0 (no problem) to 10 (severe problem) numeric rating scale. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to evaluate for inter-individual differences in trajectories of employment interference and characteristics associated with employment interference at enrollment and over 12 months. RESULTS:Patients' mean age was 55.0 (±11.7) years and the majority underwent breast conservation surgery (80.6%). Mean employment interference score was 3.2 (±3.7). Unconditional model for employment interference demonstrated a decreasing linear trend (-.076/month). Younger age, lower income, higher pain intensity, and having an axillary lymph node dissection were associated with higher pre-surgical interference scores. Having a sentinel lymph node biopsy was associated with ongoing employment interference scores. Higher sleep disturbance scores were associated with both initial and ongoing employment interference scores. Receipt of chemotherapy, use of complementary or alternative therapies, and re-excision or mastectomy following surgery were significant time varying covariates. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to use HLM to describe inter-individual differences in the trajectories of cancer's interference with employment and associated factors prior to and for 12 months following breast cancer surgery. Patients with the identified risk factors warrant ongoing assessments of employment interference and appropriate referrals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Employment; Financial toxicity; Hierarchical linear modeling; Interference; Symptom burden
Authors: Eunmi Ahn; Juhee Cho; Dong Wook Shin; Byeong Woo Park; Sei Hyun Ahn; Dong-Young Noh; Seok Jin Nam; Eun Sook Lee; Young Ho Yun Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elizabeth Quinlan; Roanne Thomas-MacLean; Tom Hack; Winkle Kwan; Baukje Miedema; Sue Tatemichi; Anna Towers; Andrea Tilley Journal: Work Date: 2009
Authors: M-L Lindbohm; E Kuosma; T Taskila; P Hietanen; K Carlsen; S Gudbergsson; H Gunnarsdottir Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul H Abrahamse; Kamaria L Lee; Lauren P Wallner; Nancy K Janz; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Monica Morrow; Allison W Kurian; Christopher R Friese; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rahul Ladwa; Elizabeth P Pinkham; Laisa Teleni; Brigid Hanley; Gemma Lock; Jodie Nixon; Oluwaseyifunmi Andi Agbejule; Fiona Crawford-Williams; Lee Jones; Mark B Pinkham; Jane Turner; Patsy Yates; Steven M McPhail; Joanne F Aitken; Carmen P Escalante; Nicolas H Hart; Raymond J Chan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Raymond Javan Chan; Bruce Cooper; Bogda Koczwara; Alexandre Chan; Chia Jie Tan; Louisa Gordon; Steven M Paul; Laura B Dunn; Yvette P Conley; Kord M Kober; Gary Abrams; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Raymond Javan Chan; Bruce Cooper; Louisa Gordon; Nicolas Hart; Chia Jie Tan; Bogda Koczwara; Kord M Kober; Alexandre Chan; Yvette P Conley; Steven M Paul; Christine Miaskowski Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 4.430