4.4 Article

Cancer survivors' perspectives and experiences regarding behavioral determinants of return to work and continuation of work

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 39, Issue 21, Pages 2164-2172

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219924

Keywords

Cancer survivors; behavior; determinants; qualitative; experiences; return to work

Categories

Funding

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [VU2013-5866]
  2. KWF Kankerbestrijding [10.13039/501100004622 [VU2013-5866]]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Supportive interventions to enhance return to work (RTW) in cancer survivors hardly showed positive effects so far. Behavioral determinants might have to be considered in the development of interventions to achieve sustained employability. This study aimed to explore cancer survivors' perspectives and experiences regarding behavioral determinants of RTW and continuation of work. Materials and methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured telephone interviews were held with 28 cancer survivors. All participants were at working age, 1-2 years after diagnosis and employed at time of diagnosis. Thematic content analysis was performed. Results: Work turned out to be a meaningful aspect of cancer survivors' life, and most participants reported a positive attitude towards their job. Social support to RTW or to continue working was mainly received from family and friends, but pressure to RTW from the occupational physician was also experienced. Changes in expectations regarding work ability from negative to positive during the treatment process were observed. Those who applied active coping mechanisms felt equipped to deal with difficulties regarding work. Conclusions: Behavioral determinants should be taken into account in the development of future interventions to support cancer survivors' RTW. However, the causal relationship still has to be determined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available