Assessing factors associated with long-term work disability after cancer in Belgium: a population-based cohort study using competing risks analysis with a 7-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: The number of workers with cancer has dramatically increasing worldwide. One of the main priorities is to preserve their quality of life and the sustainability of social security systems. We have carried out this study to assess factors associated with the ability to work after cancer. Such insight should help with the planning of rehabilitation needs and tailored programmes. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted this register-based cohort study using individual data from the Belgian Disability Insurance. Data on 15 543 socially insured Belgian people who entered into the long-term work disability between 2007 and 2011 due to cancer were used. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the duration of work disability using Kaplan-Meier and the cause-specific cumulative incidence of ability to work stratified by age, gender, occupational class and year of entering the work disability system for 11 cancer sites using the Fine and Gray model allowing for competing risks. RESULTS: The overall median time of work disability was 1.59 years (95% CI 1.52 to 1.66), ranging from 0.75 to 4.98 years. By the end of follow-up, more than one-third of the disabled cancer survivors were able to work (35%). While a large proportion of the women were able to work at the end of follow-up, the men who were able to work could do so sooner. Being women, white collar, young and having haematological, male genital or breast cancers were factors with the bestlikelihood to be able to return to work. CONCLUSION: Good prognostic factors for the ability to work were youth, woman, white collar and having breast, male genital or haematological cancers. Reviewing our results together with the cancer incidence predictions up to 2025 offers a high value for social security and rehabilitation planning and for ascertaining patients' perspectives.

Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer survivors: time for action--rapid review and expert consultation.

BACKGROUND: The spread of early detection and the improvement of cancer treatment have led to an increased prevalence of cancer survivors, including in the working age population. Return-to-work (RTW) of cancer survivors has become a key issue for national cancer control plans. This study aims (1) to identify the factors that have an impact on RTW of cancer survivors and to draw a risk profile supporting health professionals in the screening of those at risk for barriers of RTW and (2) to sharpen these results with input from health, social security and academic Belgian experts and to provide evidence-based recommendations that facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted, based on the methodology elaborated by The Knowledge to Action Research Programme and researchers from the University of York, including a quality assessment of retained studies. Next, the Delphi method was used to organize a consultation with experts in order to discuss, validate and complement the results. RESULTS: Forty-three out of 1860 studies were included. We identified nine risk factors grouped into four categories: socio-demographic, disease and treatment-related, work-related, and personal and subjective factors. Experts suggested dividing them into two even groups: factors which are modifiable and those which are not. The awareness of health professionals regarding the identified factors, a better assessment of work capacities, clarity on the rights and obligations of employers and workers alike, and the setup of a positive discrimination employment policy for cancer survivors were acknowledged as factors facilitating RTW of cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: The awareness of health professionals regarding barriers of RTW may improve the early identification of cancer survivors at risk for prolonged time to RTW and may allow early supportive intervention. Social and employment policies should be better tailored to support both employers and cancer survivors in the RTW process, providing incentives to positively discriminate cancer survivors on prolonged sick leave.

Searching for consensus among physicians involved in the management of sick-listed workers in the Belgian health care sector: a qualitative study among practitioners and stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: In Belgium, the management of sick leave involves general practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs) and social insurance physicians (SIPs). A dysfunctional relationship among these physicians can impede a patient's ability to return to work. The objective of this study was to identify ways to improve these physicians' mutual collaboration. METHODS: Two consensus techniques were successively performed among the three professional groups. Eight nominal groups (NGs) gathered 74 field practitioners, and a two-round Delphi process involved 32 stakeholders. RESULTS: From the results, it appears that two areas (reciprocal knowledge and evolution of the legal and regulatory framework) are objects of consensus among the three medical group that were surveyed. Information transfer, particularly electronic transfer, was stressed as an important way to improve. The consensual proposals regarding interdisciplinary collaboration indicate specific and practical changes to be implemented when professionals are managing workers who are on sick leave. The collaboration process appeared to be currently more problematic, but the participants correctly identified the need for common training. CONCLUSIONS: The three physician groups all agree regarding several inter-physician collaboration proposals. The study also revealed a latent conflict situation among the analysed professionals that can arise from a lack of mutual recognition. Practical changes or improvements must be included in an extended framework that involves the different determinants of interdisciplinary collaboration that are shown by theoretical models. Collaboration is a product of the actions and behaviours of various partners, which requires reciprocal knowledge and trust; collaboration also implies political and economic structures that are led by public health authorities.