C Tiedtke1, A De Rijk2, A Van den Broeck3,4, L Godderis5. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care: Centre for Environment & Health, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 5th floor (Blok d, bus 7001), 3000, Leuven, Belgium. corine.tiedtke@kuleuven.be. 2. Department of Social Medicine, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. 4. North West-University, Optentia, Vanderbijlpark Optentia Research Focus Area, P.O. Box 1174, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa. 5. Department of Public Health and Primary Care: Centre for Environment & Health, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 5th floor (Blok d, bus 7001), 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Return to work (RTW) is important for employees who have survived cancer, yet it is challenging for employers. Small enterprises (< 100 employees) might have limited resources to facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. The purpose of this article is to examine how such employers engage in the support of RTW and to uncover their needs. METHODS: Eleven owners and one HR manager representing 12 small enterprises (various sectors) were interviewed regarding their experience with RTW of employees surviving cancer. We conducted a thematic analysis with aspects of Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The characteristics of being a small enterprise (i.e. informal practical arrangements, working as a family, working with limited resources and people) related to four concerns experienced by these employers (concerns about the employer's enterprise; the employee's cancer and recovery; RTW and work adjustments; and about communication). In line with these concerns, employers need information on rights and obligations, RTW arrangements and communication skills during RTW guidance. CONCLUSIONS: In small enterprises, employers have generally close relationships with their employees, which means that support is gladly provided when employees are diagnosed with cancer. They do however have limited financial means to facilitate RTW and workplace adjustments. They therefore perceive long-term sickness and RTW as a major financial risk for the company.
PURPOSE: Return to work (RTW) is important for employees who have survived cancer, yet it is challenging for employers. Small enterprises (< 100 employees) might have limited resources to facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. The purpose of this article is to examine how such employers engage in the support of RTW and to uncover their needs. METHODS: Eleven owners and one HR manager representing 12 small enterprises (various sectors) were interviewed regarding their experience with RTW of employees surviving cancer. We conducted a thematic analysis with aspects of Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The characteristics of being a small enterprise (i.e. informal practical arrangements, working as a family, working with limited resources and people) related to four concerns experienced by these employers (concerns about the employer's enterprise; the employee's cancer and recovery; RTW and work adjustments; and about communication). In line with these concerns, employers need information on rights and obligations, RTW arrangements and communication skills during RTW guidance. CONCLUSIONS: In small enterprises, employers have generally close relationships with their employees, which means that support is gladly provided when employees are diagnosed with cancer. They do however have limited financial means to facilitate RTW and workplace adjustments. They therefore perceive long-term sickness and RTW as a major financial risk for the company.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer and work; Concerns and needs; Employer perspective; Qualitative research; Return to work; Sickness absence; Small enterprises
Authors: M A Greidanus; A E de Rijk; M H W Frings-Dresen; C M Tiedtke; S Brouwers; A G E M de Boer; S J Tamminga Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-06
Authors: M A Greidanus; A E de Rijk; A G E M de Boer; M E M M Bos; P W Plaisier; R M Smeenk; M H W Frings-Dresen; S J Tamminga Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.295