Barriers to and Facilitators of Implementing Programs for Return to Work (RTW) of Cancer Survivors in Four European Countries: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose Implementation of return to work (RTW) programs for cancer survivors has proved to be challenging. The purpose of our study was to gather experiences about barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors in four European countries. Methods Separate multidisciplinary focus groups were held in Belgium (n = 8), the Netherlands (n = 8), Ireland (n = 6), and UK (n = 4) in 2017 and included among others a physician, and a representative of an employer, a cancer society, and the government. Primary focus of thematic analysis was what could be done to improve the implementation of RTW programs for cancer survivors. Analysis used the 'Arena in work disability prevention model' as the conceptual framework. Results Many barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors were described including the personal, workplace, healthcare and legislative system as well as the overall societal and political context. That is, for example cooperation between stakeholders, time, money and ability issues at the workplace, and insufficient/inadequate legislation. Insufficient knowledge of cancer and its implications for work was identified as an overarching theme in all countries leading to stigma, misconceptions and lack of communication. This was mentioned in relation to the workplace, personal and healthcare system, and in the overall societal context. Conclusions Results indicate that a prerequisite for implementing RTW programs is raising sufficient knowledge regarding cancer and its implications for work. Greater knowledge could be a first step to better implement RTW programs which may result in better supporting cancer survivors with their RTW .

Employees Diagnosed with Cancer: Current Perspectives and Future Directions from an Employer's Point of View.

Purpose and methods Cancer survivors have a higher risk of adverse work outcomes such as not being able to return to work (RTW). The process of returning to work is complex as a result of the diverse stakeholders and numerous factors involved related to the employee diagnosed with cancer, the work environment, health care system, and the legal system. One of the key stakeholders is the employer, as the employer is in the position to facilitate work accommodations. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to consider opportunities regarding the role of the employer to enhance the work participation of employees with cancer. Results and conclusions We currently know little about which aspects of employer support have a positive impact on the ability of employees diagnosed with cancer to retain at work or RTW. In addition, there is a lack of interventions and tools which support employers in their management of employees diagnosed with cancer. The inclusion of employer support into the workplace can help employees diagnosed with cancer with their work retention and RTW, which is an important aspect of their quality of life and benefits the society at large.

The need for supportive care among head and neck cancer patients: psychometric assessment of the Dutch version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34) and the newly developed head and neck cancer module (SCNS-HNC).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the 34-item Short-Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34) and the newly developed module for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients (SCNS-HNC). METHODS: HNC patients were included from two cross-sectional studies. Content validity of the SCNS-HNC was analysed by examining redundancy and completeness of items. Factor structure was assessed using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlation, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskall-Wallis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess internal consistency, construct validity and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Content validity of the SCNS-HNC was good, although some HNC topics were missing. For the SCNS-SF34, a four-factor structure was found, namely physical and daily living, psychological, sexuality and health system and information and patient support (alpha = .79 to .95). For the SCNS-HNC, a two-factor structure was found, namely HNC-specific functioning and lifestyle (alpha = .89 and .60). Respectively, 96 and 89 % of the hypothesised correlations between the SCNS-SF34 or SCNS-HNC and other patient-reported outcome measures were found; 57 and 67 % also showed the hypothesised magnitude of correlation. The SCNS-SF34 domains discriminated between treatment procedure (physical and daily living p = .02 and psychological p = .01) and time since treatment (health system, information and patient support p = .02). Test-retest reliability of SCNS-SF34 domains and HNC-specific functioning domain was above .70 (ICC = .74 to .83), and ICC = .67 for the lifestyle domain. Floor effects ranged from 21.1 to 70.9 %. CONCLUSIONS: The SCNS-SF34 and SCNS-HNC are valid and reliable instruments to evaluate the need for supportive care among (Dutch) HNC patients.

A Multiple Stakeholder Perspective on the Drivers and Barriers for the Implementation of Lifestyle Monitoring Using Infrared Sensors to Record Movements for Vulnerable Older Adults Living Alone at Home: A Qualitative Study.

A variety of technologies classified as lifestyle monitoring (LM) allows, by unobtrusive monitoring, for supporting of living alone at home of vulnerable older adults, especially persons with neurocognitive disorders such as dementia. It can detect health deterioration, facilitate early intervention, and possibly help people avoid hospital admission. However, for LM to redeem its intended effects, it is important to be adopted by involved stakeholders such as informal and formal caregivers and care managers. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study is to understand factors that drive or impede successful implementation of LM for vulnerable older adults, specifically using infrared sensors to record movements, studied from a multiple stakeholder perspective. An open coding process was used to identify key themes of the implementation process. Data were arranged according to a thematic framework based on the normalization process theory (NPT). All stakeholders agreed that LM could lead to various health benefits for older adults using LM. However, some did not perceive the LM system to be cost-efficient and expressed a need for more flexible health care structures for LM to be successfully implemented. All stakeholders acknowledged the fact that LM requires a transition of care and responsibilities, a clear eligibility strategy for clients, and a clear ambassador strategy for health care professionals, as well as reliable technology. This study highlights the complex nature of implementing LM and suggests the need for alignment within constructs of the NPT among stakeholders about new ways of collaboration in supporting living alone at home.