Self-Employed Canadians' Experiences with Cancer and Work: A Qualitative Study.

Self-employed individuals with cancer face unique challenges that have not been fully explored in previous research. For example, while some studies conducted in Europe have suggested that self-employed workers with cancer experience more adverse health and work-related outcomes compared to salaried workers, the specific manners in which cancer affects the health, work, and businesses of self-employed individuals remain inadequately understood. This lack of understanding represents a crucial gap in the literature, as self-employed individuals make up a significant portion of the workforce in many countries, including Canada. To address this gap, a qualitative interpretive description study was undertaken to explore the experiences of 23 self-employed Canadians diagnosed with cancer from six provinces, with the aim of generating insights into the unique challenges faced by this population. The interviews were conducted in the language chosen by the participants from the two official languages of Canada, namely English and French. Using reflexive thematic analysis, four major themes and twelve subthemes were generated from the participants' shared accounts that reflected the impact of cancer on self-employed Canadians' physical, cognitive, and psychological function, affecting their work ability and their ability to maintain their business and financial well-being. Participants in the study also shared strategies they used to continue working and maintain their business during their cancer experience. This study sheds light on the impact of cancer on self-employed individuals and provides insight into the experiences of self-employed individuals with cancer that can inform the development of interventions to support this population.

Evaluation of Usability and Satisfaction of Two Online Tools to Guide Return to Work for Cancer Survivors on the Cancer and Work Website.

Prompt services and work-focused support systems are needed to aid cancer survivors returning to work or finding work. Purpose This knowledge translation and implementation project focused on the knowledge users' experience and need for refinement of three work-focused tools to support return to work and maintain work following cancer through their participation in a hands-on workshop. The tools assessed for their utility are a Job Analysis Tool (JAT), a Return to Work (RTW) tool, and a bilingual Canadian website on Cancer and Work. Methods Four workshops took place in three Canadian cities. Participants included cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, and employer representatives. Following an overview of the website and tools, workshop participants (N = 28) completed qualitative and quantitative satisfaction and usability questionnaires using the System Usability Scale and open-ended questions. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analyses from the think-aloud data and from the four open-ended questions collected during the users' use of the tools and website. Results Overall, most study participants reported high satisfaction with the JAT and RTW tools, the Cancer and work website and the workshop. Good usability scores were reported for the RTW planner (73.65 ± 12.61) and the website (74.83 ± 12.36), and only acceptable usability scores for the JAT (68.53 ± 11.90). Conclusion Overall, the study documented the value of the tools and the website to support the RTW process as assessed by several key knowledge user groups. The JAT is considered a helpful procedure to identify job demands in order to guide job accommodations. Given participants' responses that the tool is useful, the next steps are to implement the recommendations for improvement and knowledge dissemination to increase its uptake and the use of job analysis overall.

Parents' perspectives of life challenges experienced by long-term paediatric brain tumour survivors: work and finances, daily and social functioning, and legal difficulties.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric brain tumour survivors (PBTS) are at high risk for medical, neurocognitive and psychological sequelea during adulthood. Details illustrating the types and breadth of these chronic sequelae are essential to fully comprehend their impact on daily living. PURPOSE: This study describes Canadian parents of PBTS perspectives of life challenges experienced by their now adult son or daughter related to work and finances, daily and social functioning, and legal difficulties. METHOD: Parents of PBTS completed an anonymous online exploratory survey. FINDINGS: Forty-six of 60 invited parents completed the survey. Parents reported that PBTS experienced difficulty gaining or sustaining employment (65 %) because of their health and/or a disability and employers reticence to hire and adequately support PBTS. Independent living was considered unaffordable for PBTS who received a disability allowance (82 %) and those who were employed (50 %). Thirty percent indicated their family experienced hardship because of PBTS medical expenses, which were usually paid for out of pocket (76 %). Although the majority of PBTS were independent with daily tasks and social functioning, a subgroup required continuous support. Forty percent of employed PBTS received limited assistance to accommodate their special needs. Parents indicated their son or daughter had been the victim of theft, fraud or assault (37 %), and commonly considered them vulnerable, in need of protection and feared for their future safety. CONCLUSION: Research that further illuminates the hardships facing PBTS and informs the development of support and resources to address PBTS vulnerabilities is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PBTS are at risk for unemployment, financial challenges and legal difficulties, which appear to be poorly addressed by health and social programs.

Prospective comparison of two cognitive screening tests: diagnostic accuracy and correlation with community integration and quality of life.

Cognitive screening tests are frequently used in brain tumor clinics. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly used, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an alternative. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of both screening tests. Fifty-eight patients with brain tumors were prospectively accrued and administered the MMSE and MoCA, 67% of who completed a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation as a gold standard comparison. Quality of life and community integration were measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) and Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), respectively. At the pre-defined cut-off scores, the MoCA had superior sensitivity (61.9% vs. 19.0%, P < 0.005) and the MMSE had superior specificity (94.4% vs. 55.6%, P < 0.017). The areas under the ROC curve for the MMSE (0.615, standard error = 0.091) and MoCA (0.606, standard error = 0.092) were poor, indicating that at no single cut-off score is either test both sensitive and specific. Neither the MMSE (ρ = 0.12; P < 0.444) nor MoCA (ρ = 0.24; P < 0.108) were significantly correlated with the FACT-Br. The MoCA was modestly correlated with the CIQ (ρ = 0.35; P < 0.017), but the MMSE was not (ρ = 0.14; P < 0.359). The MMSE has extremely poor sensitivity. Using this test in clinical practice, research, and clinical trials will result in failing to detect cognitive impairment in a substantial percentage of patients. The MoCA has superior sensitivity, and is better correlated with self reported measures of community integration, and therefore should be preferentially chosen in practice and clinical trials.

Prospective comparison of the prognostic utility of the Mini Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with brain metastases.

PURPOSE: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly chosen cognitive screening test (CST) in clinical practice and trials, despite its poor sensitivity, likely because of its prognostic utility. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an alternative CST, is more sensitive, and is better correlated with quality of life. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with brain metastases were prospectively accrued and completed both the MMSE and MoCA. We compared the prognostic utility of both CSTs. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 59.0 years; 42.0% had single brain metastases. Median MMSE and MoCA scores were 28 and 22, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was worse for individuals with below- versus above-average MMSE scores (10.4 versus 36.3 weeks, p = 0.007). Likewise, below- versus above-average MoCA scores were prognostic (6.3 versus 50.0 weeks, p < 0.001). Median OS for MoCA scores <22, 22-26, and >26 were 6.3, 30.9, and 61.7 weeks, respectively (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, below-average MMSE scores were no longer prognostic (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.71 [0.90-3.26]), though below-average MoCA scores were (HR = 5.44 [2.70-10.94]). Furthermore, the MoCA demonstrated superior prognostic utility when comparing multivariable models with continuous CST scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the MoCA is a superior prognostic indicator than the MMSE. Furthermore, given its superior sensitivity and better correlation with quality of life, the MoCA should be preferentially chosen in clinical practice and trials.

Selection bias introduced by neuropsychological assessments.

OBJECTIVE: Two prospective studies in patient with brain tumours were performed comparing the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The first assessed their feasibility and the second compared their diagnostic accuracy against a four-hour neuropsychological assessment (NPA). The introduction of the NPA decreased accrual and retention rates. We were therefore concerned regarding potential selection bias. METHODS: Ninety-two patients were prospectively accrued and subsequently divided into three categories: a) no NPA required b) withdrew consent to NPA c) completed NPA. In order to quantify any potential bias introduced by the NPA, patient demographics and cognitive test scores were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: There were significant differences in age (p < 0.001), education (p = 0.034), dexamethasone use (p = 0.002), MMSE (p = 0.005), and MoCA scores (p < 0.001) across the different study groups. Furthermore, with increasing involvement of the NPA, patients' cognitive scores and educational status increased, while their age, dexamethasone use, and opioid use all decreased. Individuals who completed the NPA had higher MoCA scores than individuals who were not asked to complete the NPA (24.7 vs. 20.5; p < 0.001). In addition, this relationship held when restricting the analyses to individuals with brain metastases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the lengthy NPA chosen introduced a statistically and clinically significant source of selection bias. These results highlight the importance of selecting brief and well tolerated assessments when possible. However, researchers are challenged by weighing the improved selection bias associated with brief assessments at the cost of reduced diagnostic accuracy.