Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Return-to-work interventions integrated into cancer care: a systematic review
Free
  1. S J Tamminga1,
  2. A G E M de Boer1,
  3. J H A M Verbeek1,2,
  4. M H W Frings-Dresen1
  1. 1Coronel Institute of Occupational Health/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  2. 2Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Knowledge Transfer Team, Kuopio, Finland
  1. Correspondence to S J Tamminga, Coronel Insitute of Occupational Health/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, Amsterdam 1100 DE, The Netherlands; s.j.tamminga{at}amc.uva.nl

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the content of interventions focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer. Furthermore, the effect of the interventions on return to work was assessed in studies reporting return to work.

Methods A literature search was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles that described a work-directed intervention focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer were included. The content of the work-directed part of the interventions was assessed based on two criteria for content analysis: 1. does the setting fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care? 2. Does the intervention target work ability and physical workload? For studies reporting return-to-work outcomes, the return-to-work rates were assessed. For studies that used a control group the ORs and the 95% CIs were calculated.

Results Twenty-three articles describing 19 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported return-to-work outcomes of which four used a control group. Only three interventions aimed primarily at enhancing return to work or employment status. The most frequently reported work-directed components were encouragement, education or advice about work or work-related subjects (68%), vocational or occupational training (21%), or work accommodations (11%). One intervention fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care and five interventions enhanced work ability or decreased physical workload. The rate of return to work ranged from 37% to 89%. In one of the four controlled studies the intervention increased return to work significantly and in the other studies the results were insignificant.

Conclusions Only few interventions are primarily aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with cancer and most do not fit the shared care model involving integrated cancer care. Future studies should be developed with well-structured work-directed components that should be evaluated in randomised controlled trials.

  • Cancer
  • cancer survivor
  • return-to-work
  • (vocational) rehabilitation
  • interventions
  • OH services
  • sickness absence
  • intervention studies

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Linked articles 051847.

  • Funding This study is granted by the Stichting Insituut GAK (SIG). Address: Borneolaan 27, 1217 GX Hilversum, the Netherlands, Email: info{at}instituutgak.nl.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles