4.5 Article

A five-phase process model describing the return to sustainable work of persons who survived cancer: A qualitative study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
Volume 34, Issue -, Pages 21-27

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2018.03.003

Keywords

Survivor; Cancer; Return to work; Psychological adaptation; Health promotion; Qualitative research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We investigated persons who survived cancer (PSC) and their experiences in returning to sustainable work. Methods: Videotaped, qualitative, in-depth interviews with previous cancer patients were analyzed directly using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four men and four women aged 42-59 years participated. Mean time since last treatment was nine years. All participants had worked for more than 3 years when interviewed. An advisory team of seven members with diverse cancer experiences contributed as co-researchers. Results: The entire trajectory from cancer diagnosis until achievement of sustainable work was analog to a journey, and a process model comprising five phases was developed, including personal situations, treatments, and work issues. The theme return-to-work (RTW) turned out to be difficult to separate from the entire journey that started at the time of diagnosis. PSCs were mainly concerned about fighting for life in phases 1 and 2. In phase 3 and 4, some participants had to adjust and make changes at work more than once over a period of 1-10 years before reaching sustainable work in phase 5. Overall, the ability to adapt to new circumstances, take advantage of emerging opportunities, and finding meaningful occupational activities were crucial. Conclusions: Our process model may be useful as a tool when discussing the future working life of PSCs. Every individual's journey towards sustainable work was unique, and contained distinct and long-lasting efforts and difficulties. The first attempt to RTW after cancer may not be persistent.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available