4.3 Article

Factors Related to Return to Work by Women with Breast Cancer in Northern France

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 49-58

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10926-009-9215-y

关键词

Breast-cancer; Return to work; Absence duration; Self-perceived factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Earlier diagnosis and better treatment have increased the survival rates of breast cancer patients. This warrants research on return to work of cancer survivors, especially about subjective factors because they affect the mental desire to return to work. Moreover, knowledge in this issue is very limited in France. Objectives This study aims to explore the objective and subjective factors that affect whether and when women with breast cancer return to work. Methods 379 women with breast cancer aged 18-60 years who were working at the time of diagnosis responded to a 45 item questionnaire. The questionnaire had personal characteristics, disease-related characteristics and work-related ones. Multivariate logistic regressions were run to determine the association of these factors and return to work and time until return to work. Results During a median follow-up of 36 months, 82.1% of the 379 women who had worked before their diagnosis returned to work after a median sick leave of 10.8 months. Older age, lower educational level, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lymphoedema, psychological or organizational self-perceived constraints related to their former job, and the lack of moral support from work colleagues both limited and delayed return to work. Conclusion The resumption of work by women with breast cancer depends on many factors, not all of them medical. The self-perceived factors must be considered: first to help support these women during their sick leave, while taking into account elements that may hinder early return to work; second to initiate a work resumption support process which takes into account both the person and her environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据