Supporting 'work-related goals' rather than 'return to work' after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically review and synthesise qualitative studies of employment and cancer. METHODS: A rigorous systematic review and meta-synthesis process was followed. A total of 13,233 papers were retrieved from eight databases; 69 were deemed relevant following title and abstract appraisal. Four further publications were identified via contact with key authors. Screening of full texts resulted in the retention of 25 publications from six countries, which were included in the synthesis. RESULTS: Studies consistently indicate that for people with cancer, 'work' forms a central basis for self-identity and self-esteem, provides financial security, forms and maintains social relationships, and represents an individual's abilities, talents and health. Work is therefore more than paid employment. Its importance to individuals rests on the relative value survivors place on these constituent functions. The desirability, importance and subsequent interpretation of individuals' experience of 'return to work' appears to be influenced by the ways in which cancer affects these functions or goals of 'work'. Our synthesis draws these complex elements into a heuristic model to help illustrate and communicate these inter-relationships. CONCLUSION: The concept of 'return to work' may be overly simplistic, and as a result, misleading. The proposed benefits previously ascribed to 'return to work' may only be achieved through consideration of the specific meaning and role of work to the individual. Interventions to address work-related issues need to be person-centred, acknowledging the work-related outcomes that are important to the individual. A conceptual and operational shift towards supporting survivors to identify and achieve their 'work-related goals' may be more appropriate.

Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why? A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' experiences are often treated as health care quality indicators. Our aim was to identify the range of experiences of health care delivery that matter to patients and to produce a conceptual map to facilitate consideration of why they matter. METHODS: Broad-based review and critical interpretive synthesis of research literature on patients' perspectives of health care delivery. We recorded experiences reported by a diverse range of patients on 'concept cards', considered why they were important, and explored various ways of organizing them, including internationally recognized health care quality frameworks. We developed a conceptual map that we refined with feedback from stakeholders. RESULTS: Patients identify many health care experiences as important. Existing health care quality frameworks do not cover them all. Our conceptual map presents a rich array of experiences, including health care relationships (beyond communication) and their implications for people's valued capabilities (e.g. to feel respected, contribute to their care, experience reciprocity). It is organized to reflect our synthesis argument, which links health care delivery to what people are enabled (or not) to feel, be and do. The map highlights the broad implications of the social dynamics of health care delivery. Experiences are labelled from a patient's perspective, rendering the importance of responsiveness to individuals axiomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Our conceptual map identifies and helps explain the importance of diverse experiences of health care delivery. It challenges and helps policy-makers, service providers and researchers to attend to the range of experiences that matter, and to take seriously the need for responsiveness to individuals.