Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Working from home: mismatch between access and need in relation to work-home interference and fatigue.

OBJECTIVES: Working from home (WfH) is a promising practice that may enable employees to successfully and sustainably combine work and private life. Yet, not every employer facilitates WfH and not every employee has similar needs concerning the practice. The current study aims to examine the association of a WfH mismatch with work-home interference (WHI) and fatigue. METHODS: Data on WfH, WHI, and fatigue of a quasi-representative sample of 2374 Dutch employees in 2012/13 and a follow-up measurement one year later were used. Cross-sectional and longitudinal regression analyses were conducted to investigate the cross-sectional and temporal associations between WfH mismatch on the one hand and (changes in) time-based and strain-based WHI and fatigue on the other hand. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional analyses, WfH mismatch was significantly associated with higher time-based WHI (B=0.13), strain-based WHI (B=0.17) and more fatigue (B=0.32). WfH mismatch was not associated with changes in these outcomes after one year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored WfH organizational policy, in which employees' need for working from home is taken into account, may be a fruitful approach to utilize WfH as a way for employees to successfully and sustainably combine work and private life to its full potential.

Long-term work retention after treatment for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Almost half of people diagnosed with cancer are working age. Survivors have increased risk of unemployment, but little is known about long-term work retention. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed work retention and associated factors in long-term cancer survivors. METHODS: We searched Medline/Pubmed, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL for studies published 01/01/2000-08/01/2019 reporting work retention in adult cancer survivors ≥ 2 years post-diagnosis. Survivors had to be in paid work at diagnosis. Pooled prevalence of long-term work retention was estimated. Factors associated with work retention from multivariate analysis were synthesized. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles, reporting 21 studies/datasets including 14,207 cancer survivors, were eligible. Work retention was assessed 2-14 years post-diagnosis. Fourteen studies were cross-sectional, five were prospective, and two contained both cross-sectional and prospective elements. No studies were scored as high quality. The pooled estimate of prevalence of long-term work retention in cancer survivors working at diagnosis was 0.73 (95%CI 0.69-0.77). The proportion working at 2-2.9 years was 0.72; at 3-3.9 years 0.80; at 4-4.9 years 0.75; at 5-5.9 years 0.74; and 6+ years 0.65. Pooled estimates did not differ by cancer site, geographical area, or study design. Seven studies assessed prognostic factors for work retention: older age, receiving chemotherapy, negative health outcomes, and lack of work adjustments were associated with not working. CONCLUSION: Almost three-quarters of long-term cancer survivors working at diagnosis retain work. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are pertinent for guidelines on cancer survivorship care. Professionals could focus support on survivors most likely to have poor long-term work outcomes.

Enhancing the Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Development and Feasibility of the Nurse-Led eHealth Intervention Cancer@Work.

BACKGROUND: It is important to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors with an appropriate intervention, as cancer survivors experience problems upon their return to work but consider it an essential part of their recovery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop an eHealth intervention to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors and to test the feasibility of the eHealth intervention with end users. METHODS: To develop the intervention we 1) searched the literature, 2) interviewed 7 eHealth experts, 3) interviewed 7 cancer survivors, 2 employers, and 7 occupational physicians, and 4) consulted experts. To test feasibility, we enrolled 39 cancer survivors, 9 supervisors, 7 occupational physicians, 9 general physicians and 2 social workers and gave them access to the eHealth intervention. We also interviewed participants, asked them to fill in a questionnaire, or both, to test which functionalities of the eHealth intervention were appropriate and which aspects needed improvement. RESULTS: Cancer survivors particularly want information and support regarding the possibility of returning to work, and on financial and legal aspects of their situation. Furthermore, the use of blended care and the personalization of the eHealth intervention were preferred features for increasing compliance. The first version of the eHealth intervention consisted of access to a personal and secure website containing various functionalities for cancer survivors blended with support from their specialized nurse, and a public website for employers, occupational physicians, and general physicians. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible. We adapted it slightly by adding more information on different cancer types and their possible effects on return to work. CONCLUSIONS: A multistakeholder and mixed-method design appeared useful in the development of the eHealth intervention. It was challenging to meet all end user requirements due to legal and privacy constraints. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible, although implementation in daily practice needs to be subject of further research. CLINICALTRIAL: Dutch Trial Register number (NTR): 5190; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5190 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hm4WQJqC).

Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than healthy people. It is therefore important to provide cancer patients with programmes to support the return-to-work process. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH-ROM, PsycINFO, DARE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Trialregister.nl and Controlled-trials.com to February 2010, reference lists of included articles and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) of the effectiveness of psychological, vocational, physical, medical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients. The primary outcome was return-to-work measured as either return-to-work rate or sick leave duration. Secondary outcome was quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled studies with sufficient data, judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen articles reporting 14 RCTs and 4 CBAs were included. These studies involved a total of 1652 participants. Results indicated low quality evidence of similar return-to-work rates for psychological interventions compared to care as usual (odds ratio (OR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 5.71). No vocational interventions were retrieved. Very low evidence suggested that physical training was not more effective than care as usual on improving return-to-work (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.54). Eight RCTs on medical interventions showed low quality evidence that functioning conserving approaches had similar return-to-work rates as more radical treatments (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.45). Moderate quality evidence showed multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psychological and vocational components led to higher return-to-work rates than care as usual (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.27). No differences in the effect of psychological, physical, medical or multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual were found on quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence showed that employed patients with cancer experience return-to-work benefits from multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual. More high quality RCTs aimed at enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients are needed.