Return to work experiences of patients treated with stem cell transplantation for a hematologic malignancy.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to identify hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) survivors' (1) work perceptions; (2) barriers to and facilitators of return to work (RTW); and (3) possible solutions to improve RTW. METHOD: Fifteen patients treated with HSCT 1-5 years ago participated in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed following the steps of thematic content analyses. RESULTS: RTW was often characterized as a complex and prolonged trajectory, and it was frequently incomplete in working hours, tasks, and/or responsibilities. Work perceptions varied between patients; most valued work as positive, but some also reported a decline in work capacity and/or in importance. Perceived barriers included the duration and side effects of cancer treatment, the presence of comorbidity and poor health before diagnosis, having difficulties commuting and doing household tasks. Perceived facilitators were financial incentives, keeping in touch with the workplace, support of other patients and family, and looking after one's health. Proposed solutions to improve RTW included discussing RTW at the hospital, enhanced employer support, improved accessibility of rehabilitation programs, and more information about the consequences of being sick-listed. CONCLUSIONS: Many HSCT survivors value work as important and they are motivated to RTW. Insight in work perceptions, RTW barriers, and solutions might help researchers, healthcare professionals, and employers to develop and/or tailor individualized multidisciplinary care to facilitate RTW.

Lessons learnt from a process evaluation of an exercise intervention in patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation.

This paper describes the process evaluation of an 18-week supervised exercise programme in 50 patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. The intervention included 30 exercise sessions with six resistance exercises and interval training. We evaluated the context, dose delivered and received, and patients' and physiotherapists' satisfaction with the intervention. Ninety-two per cent of the patients trained within 15 km of their home address, with an average session attendance of 86%. Most patients trained at the prescribed intensity for four of the six resistance exercises, but the dose delivered and received of the two remaining resistance exercises and interval training could not be determined. Both patients and physiotherapists highly appreciated the programme (score of 8.3 and 7.9 out of 10 respectively). This process evaluation provided valuable lessons for future trials: (1) It is possible to deliver supervised exercise training to this patient group in local physiotherapy practices; (2) to determine dose received all intervention components should be standardised; and (3) to optimise data collection, all study materials should be tested more extensively prior to the start of the intervention.