4.2 Article

Work-related barriers, facilitators, and strategies of breast cancer survivors working during curative treatment

Journal

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-162449

Keywords

Content analysis; technology and tools; accommodation; cancer survivor; working during active treatment

Funding

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [90IF0083-01-00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Research has identified barriers and facilitators affecting cancer survivors' return to work (RTW) following the end of active treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy). However, few studies have focused on barriers and facilitators that cancer survivors experience while working during active treatment. Strategies used by cancer survivors to solve work-related problems during active treatment are underexplored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe factors that impact, either positively or negatively, breast cancer survivors' work activities during active treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured, recorded interviews were conducted with 35 breast cancer survivors who worked during active treatment. Transcripts of interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis to identify themes regarding work-related barriers, facilitators and strategies. RESULTS: Barriers identified included symptoms, emotional distress, appearance change, time constraints, work characteristics, unsupportive supervisors and coworkers, family issues and other illness. Facilitators included positive aspects of work, support outside of work, and coworker and supervisor support. Strategies included activities to improve health-related issues and changes to working conditions and tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors encounter various barriers during active treatment. Several facilitators and strategies can help survivors maintain productive work activities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available