Exploring the Needs of Cancer Survivors When Returning to or Staying in the Workforce.

Purpose Cancer survivors have strong personal desires to resume work to feel productive and meet financial needs. However, they may be faced with physical and psychological challenges. This research addresses the question: "What are the needs of cancer survivors when returning to or staying in the workforce?" by (i) examining cancer survivors' perspectives on supports needed when returning to or staying in the workforce and (ii) exploring personal and employment factors that influence the return to work process. Methods An exploratory qualitative design was used. We conducted focus groups and one-on-one semi-structured interviews with cancer survivors (n = 15). Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results Four key themes were identified as significant aspects of the return-to-work process for cancer survivors: (1) changing perspectives on self and work; (2) managing work and social systems; (3) determining disclosure and accommodation; and (4) the importance of supports for return to work and daily life. Conclusions There is a growing interest in developing targeted interventions to improve work outcomes for cancer survivors. This study informs cancer rehabilitation research by developing an understanding of the supports and strategies that should be implemented to help cancer survivors return to work successfully and improve quality of life.

Exploring Accelerometer Versus Self-Report Sleep Assessment in Youth With Concussion.

This study examines accelerometer-based and self-report assessment of sleep disturbance from a larger prospective cohort of youth 5 to 18 years of age with postconcussive injury. Twenty-one participants with self-reported sleep disturbance were evaluated using accelerometers. Participants completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) every 48 hours and also measured sleep via accelerometry. Correlations were conducted matching PSQI scores to accelerometry assessment. PSQI scores were significantly correlated only with "average number of awakenings" (r = -0.21; P = .049). Accelerometer-measured mean (standard deviation) sleep efficiency was 79.9% (5.20%), with normal sleep defined as >85%. The mean (standard deviation) PSQI global score was 10.5 (3.78) out of 21, where scores of >5 indicate subjective insomnia. Results suggest the PSQI and accelerometers may be measuring different attributes of sleep. Both may be needed as actual sleep is important but so is perception of good sleep. These findings call for further validity testing of objective sleep assessment measures and commonly used self-report tools.