4.4 Article

Employment in a cohort of cancer patients in Spain. A predictive model of working outcomes

Journal

CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages 826-830

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-008-0296-4

Keywords

Occupation; Cancer; Rehabilitation; Return to work

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer patients can have problems remaining in employment but the importance of this issue has until now received little attention in Spain. The study included 347 consecutive cancer patients who were employed at diagnosis. Diagnosis had been confirmed at least 6 months before the interview. Participants completed a questionnaire concerning cancer-related symptoms and work-related factors and clinical details were obtained from their medical records. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of La Paz Hospital. All patients gave consent to participate. Eighty-five percent of patients were unable to work after diagnosis, but 59% returned to work at the end of treatment. Gender, age, type of worker and type of treatment were independently associated with the ability to work after diagnosis. At the end of treatment these factors were age, education, tumour stage, overall response to the therapy, associated co-morbidity and sequelae of the disease or its treatment. Twenty-one percent noticed changes in their relationship with co-workers and managers, usually in the sense that they tried to be helpful. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the strongest predictors for remaining in employment were age, overall response and sequelae of the disease or its treatment. Cancer survivors in this study encountered some problems in returning to work, mainly linked to the sequelae of their disease and its treatment, rather than to discrimination by employers or colleagues. Prediction of working outcomes is possible to recommend interventions.

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