A systematic review of interventions to retain chronically ill occupationally active employees in work: can findings be transferred to cancer survivors?

What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews

Background

In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work-related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH-trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi-disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return-to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi-disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work-related outcomes.

Objectives

The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work-related outcomes.

Search Methods

In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi-disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non-clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level.

Data Collection and Analysis

Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI-Mapper software to create an EGM.

Stakeholder Involvement

We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it.

Main Results

We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically-Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work-related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review.

Authors’ Conclusions

This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary, workplace-based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Promoting labour market inclusion of the chronically ill: a scoping review of Scandinavian countries' efforts

OBJECTIVES

This article is a scoping review of efforts in labour market inclusion of the chronically ill in the Scandinavian countries, a research area that has received much political as well as research attention in recent years. The aim of the review was to identify promising strategies and the need for further research.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched for literature published between 2015 and 2020. We included peer-reviewed articles that studied the effect of measures, aimed at the workplace or at the individual, that are intended to increase participation. Our search resulted in 2718 articles; our screening procedures resulted in 47 included articles.

RESULTS

Among the included studies, musculoskeletal problems (17 articles) and mental health problems (29 articles) were the most frequent chronic conditions. Multimodal occupational rehabilitation programmes directed towards the individual employee were the most frequent interventions (30 articles). Return to work (24 articles) and sickness absence (12 articles) were the most common outcomes. About half (25 articles) of the included studies reported a positive impact of the intervention on work inclusion of the chronically ill.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found little evidence of how government programmes directed towards the supply side of the labour market succeed in including the chronically ill. Our review further indicated that multidisciplinary workplace interventions have a substantial effect. We also identified a significant lack of research on the effect of various governmental policies and programmes, including local health, work and welfare services, and limited coordination and cooperation between health and work services professions.

Interventions for work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors: a systematic review

Background: Supporting unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors in their work participation can have extensive individual and societal benefits. We aimed to identify and summarise interventions for work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors.Methods: Five databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for quantitative studies on interventions aimed at enhancing work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors. Work participation refers to participation in the workforce, fulfilling one's work role. Manual and automatic screening (with ASReview software) were performed on titles and abstracts, followed by manual full-text screening. Data were extracted regarding study, patient and intervention characteristics, and work participation outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and QUIPS tools.Results: We identified 10,771 articles, of which we included two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of which one feasibility RCT, and three cohort studies. In total, 1862 cancer survivors were included, with predominantly breast cancer. Work participation was mainly measured as time to return to work (RTW) and RTW rate. Interventions included components of coaching (e.g., psychological or rehabilitation), training (e.g., building confidence and managing fatigue) and self-management. Two RCTs with unclear RoB did not show an effect of multicomponent interventions compared to care as usual. One cohort study found a significant effect of a psycho-educational intervention on RTW rates, with moderate RoB. The other two cohort studies, with moderate RoB, reported significant associations between components including job search and placement assistance, and work participation.Discussion: Only few interventions aimed at enhancing work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors, have been evaluated. In two cohort studies, promising components for future multicomponent interventions were identified. However, findings suggest that more evidence is necessary on such multicomponent interventions, in which elements explicitly directed at work and including the workplace should be included.

Tailoring work participation support for cancer survivors using the stages of change: perspectives of (health care) professionals and survivors

PURPOSE

Interventions to support work participation in cancer survivors (CSs) have shown limited effectiveness. Applying a behavioral change framework (e.g., stages of change) could make work participation interventions for CSs more timely and tailored. We aimed to explore the application of the stages of change framework to work participation support for CSs and to generate stage-specific intervention content.

METHODS

Eighteen experts (e.g., occupational physicians, reintegration consultants) were individually interviewed, and three focus groups with CSs (n = 6, n = 5, n = 4) were conducted. Data were analyzed along the six work-related behavioral change stages purported by the readiness for return to work framework, which is based on the stages of change.

RESULTS

The following themes were identified: (1) pre-contemplation: emotional support and staying connected-encourage contact with the employer/colleagues; (2) contemplation: considering return to work is stressful-facilitate the deliberation process; (3) preparation self-evaluative: assess current capabilities-seek guidance from, e.g., occupational physicians; (4) preparation behavioral: planning return to work-allow for personalized solutions and encourage supervised return to work; (5) uncertain maintenance: guard against overload-train self-efficacy strategies and communication tactics; and (6) proactive maintenance: accept and prepare for the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the potential utility of tailoring CSs' work participation support along the stages of change.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

We provided recommendations for intervention content and developed a stage-specific work participation intervention for CSs, the effectiveness of which will be evaluated in an upcoming randomized controlled trial.

"To have and then lose the safety net" - Female cancer survivors' experiences of the process of becoming ready to return to work

BACKGROUND

Validation studies have not been able to confirm the stage-specific understanding as operationalised in the readiness for return to work (RRTW) questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE

To explore retrospectively how working female cancer survivors experienced the process of becoming ready to RTW during and beyond participation in an occupational rehabilitation intervention and thereby expand the understanding of the RRTW construct.

METHODS

A qualitative research design was employed. Thirteen female cancer survivors were included for semi-structured interviews one to two years after they had completed active treatment and returned to work. The RRTW construct guided data generation and analysis. Content analysis was performed in four analytical steps that combined a concept-driven and a data-driven analytic strategy.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified; "To have and then lose the safety net", "Realise a changed life situation", "Strive to balance work and everyday life". In a time span of approximately one to two years (from receiving treatment, being enrolled in an intervention and to gradually returning to work); the identified themes were interdependent of each other as one theme gradually evolved to the next theme in the process of engaging in sustained work participation.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study points towards continuous development of the RRTW construct and whether the addition of a preparedness dimension would improve validity.

A social-healthcare pathway to facilitate return to work of cancer survivors in Italy: The UNAMANO project

BACKGROUND:

Return to work (RTW) is a major goal to promote cancer survivors’ social participation.

OBJECTIVE:

This study describes the multidisciplinary social-healthcare pathway called UNAMANO, conceived to support RTW in this population.

METHODS:

UNAMANO was developed by the Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, in partnership with the local branch of the Italian Medical Association, nonprofit associations, vocational training institutions, social cooperatives, a labour union, and a chartered accounting firm.

RESULTS:

UNAMANO is directed towards employed individuals diagnosed with cancer living in the province of RE. It was developed through four actions: A) training healthcare professionals on work-related occupational rehabilitation; B) dissemination among community and stakeholders; C) recruitment and training of volunteers; D) cancer survivor engagement and provision of a personalized comprehensive intervention. This consists in providing information and either occupational therapy to overcome barriers and facilitate RTW or social support through re-training and tailored job search strategies based on individual risk of job loss.

CONCLUSIONS:

UNAMANO is the first Italian multidisciplinary social-healthcare pathway supporting RTW of cancer survivors. Addressing a wide area of cancer survivors’ needs, it provides personalized intervention to resolve work-related issues. We propose this patient-centred RTW model to promote an easier transition from hospital to community.

Supporting participation in paid work of cancer survivors and their partners in the Netherlands: protocol of the SusTained Employability in cancer Patients and their partnerS (STEPS) multi-centre randomized controlled trial and cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many cancer survivors experience physical and/or psychosocial problems affecting return to work (RTW) and work retention. Current interventions on RTW lack evidence regarding effectiveness, while interventions for work retention are missing. Partners of cancer survivors may also experience work- and health-related outcomes; yet, these consequences are not well understood. Here, the protocol of the STEPS study is described. The study aims are to: 1) evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a rehabilitation program for RTW and work retention in cancer survivors, and 2) assess health- and work-related outcomes among cancer survivors' partners.

METHODS

In a multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), 236 working-age cancer survivors with an employment contract will be randomly allocated to a usual care group or an intervention group receiving a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, combining occupational therapy facilitating work retention (e.g., energy management and self-efficacy training) and reintegration consultation addressing work-related issues (e.g., RTW planning and discussing workplace or task modifications with the supervisor). Alongside the RCT, a prospective cohort study will be conducted among cancer survivors' partners (n = 267). Participants in the RCT and cohort study will be asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, and after six and 12 months, assessing work- and health-related outcomes. Generalized estimating equations will be used to assess intervention's effectiveness, compared to usual care, regarding primary (i.e., working hours per week) and secondary outcomes. Also economic and process evaluations will be performed. For the cohort study, logistic or linear regression modelling will be applied assessing work- and health-related outcomes (primary outcome: working hours) of cancer survivors' partners, and what factors predict these outcomes.

RESULTS

The study is planned to start in September 2021; results are expected in 2023.

CONCLUSION

Compared to usual care, the STEPS intervention is hypothesized to be (cost-)effective and the intervention could be a valuable addition to standard care helping cancer survivors to sustain employment. Further, it is expected that living with a cancer survivor has a substantial impact on work and health of partners, while specific groups of partners that are at particular risk for this impact are likely to be identified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register ( NTR;NL9094 ; 15-12-2020).

Factors of decisive importance for being in work or not during two years after breast cancer surgery: content analysis of 462 women's open answers

Background

Paid work is one of the most important aspects in life among working-aged women diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite several attempts, no previous study provides a comprehensive overview from the women’s perspective about factors of importance for being able to work or not. Therefore, the aim of this study was to gain knowledge about factors that women themselves state are of decisive importance for being able to work or not during the first two years after breast cancer surgery.

Methods

Data was collected in a two-year follow-up questionnaire within the frame of a prospective cohort study of working-aged women who had undergone breast cancer surgery. 749 were included in the questionnaire study and of the 616 (82%) responding women, 462 (75%) wrote statements on an open-ended question about factors of decisive importance for being able to work or not work during the past two years. The statements were analyzed with content analysis.

Results

Five categories of factors of importance for being able to  work or not were identified, each covering several sub-categories: Health and wellbeing, Contacts and encounters, Flexibility and adjustment possibilities, Socioeconomic consequences from working/not working, and Own motivation and characteristics. A wide variety of factors were mentioned by the women and the findings give a multifaceted picture of many single but interrelated factors of decisive importance for being able to work/not work. The importance of flexibility in the return-to-work process was stressed, as well as the importance of supportive encounters from, e.g., colleagues, managers, as well as relatives.

Conclusions

The results give a comprehensive overview over a variety of different types of factors for being able to return to/remain in work or to not work after breast cancer surgery, adding new knowledge about e.g. the importance of colleagues, and the women’s own preferences or characteristics. These are factors that different stakeholders, both from healthcare but also from the work place and the insurance office, need to be aware of and collaborate around to support women with breast cancer during the period of treatment, rehabilitation and return to work.

Municipal return to work management in cancer survivors: a controlled intervention study

INTRODUCTION

Resuming work during or after cancer treatment has become an important target in cancer rehabilitation.

PURPOSE

The aim was in a controlled trial to study the return to work (RTW) effect of an early, individually tailored vocational rehabilitation intervention targeted to improve readiness for RTW in cancer survivors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants diagnosed with breast, cervix, ovary, testicular, colon-rectal, and head-and-neck cancers as well as being employed were allocated to a vocational rehabilitation intervention provided by municipal social workers (n = 83) or to usual municipal RTW management (n = 264). The intervention contained three elements: motivational communication inspired by Acceptance and Commitment Therapy by which RTW barriers were addressed, municipal cancer rehabilitation and finally employer and workplace contact. RTW effect was assessed as relative cumulative incidence proportions (RCIP) in the control and intervention group within 52 weeks of follow-up, estimated from the week where treatment ended at the hospital. RCIP was interpreted and reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for gender, age cancer diagnosis, education, comorbidity, and sick leave weeks.

RESULTS

Across cancer diagnoses 69 (83.1%) and 215 (81.4%) returned to work in the intervention and control group, respectively. No statistical effect was seen (RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98-1.19)). Repeating the analyses solely for participants with breast cancer (n = 290) showed a significant effect of the intervention (RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.01-1.23)).

CONCLUSION

More than 80% returned to work in both groups. However, no statistical difference in RTW effect was seen across cancer diagnoses within one year from being exposed to an early, individually tailored vocational rehabilitation intervention compared with usual municipal RTW management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN50753764.

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Physical activity has been shown to improve survival and quality of life of cancer patients. Due to differences in patient populations, healthcare settings, and types of intervention, cost-effectiveness analyses of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors are difficult to compare. Available evidence from breast cancer survivor research has shown inconsistent results, and transfer of results to other types of cancer is not straightforward. This paper systematically reviewed current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors independent of cancer type compared to usual care or another experimental intervention.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in seven databases and enhanced by a search for gray literature. Eligible studies were restricted to developed countries and assessed using the CHEERS, CHEC, and PHILIPS checklists. The study protocol was pre-published in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Seven studies, five cost-utility, and two combined cost-utility/cost-effectiveness analyses fully met the inclusion criteria. They covered eight different types of cancer and various interventions. The cost-effectiveness analyses were of moderate to high methodological quality. A high probability of cost-effectiveness was reported in two analyses. One intervention appeared to be not cost-effective, and one to be cost-effective only from an organizational perspective. Three other analyses reported a cost-effectiveness better than US$ 101,195 (€ 80,000) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries were cost-effective in some but not all clinical trials reviewed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions appear to depend upon the intensity of the activity.

Cancer-related cognitive problems at work: experiences of survivors and professionals

PURPOSE

Cancer-related cognitive problems (cancer-related cognitive problems) in working cancer survivors are found to affect work outcomes. We aimed to generate in-depth information regarding cancer-related cognitive problems in working cancer survivors, strategies used to cope with cancer-related cognitive problems at work, and needs of cancer survivors and professionals regarding cancer-related cognitive problems at work.

METHODS

Five focus groups were formed, amongst which three focus groups with cancer survivors (n = 8, n = 7, and n = 8) and two focus groups with professionals (n = 7, n = 8). Thematic analysis of the transcripts was performed to create concepts.

RESULTS

Both cancer survivors and professionals confirmed that cancer-related cognitive problems, which occurred in several domains of neurocognitive functioning, affect work functioning. Cancer survivors used several strategies (e.g., applying practical adjustments, re-organization of work, and accepting limitations) to cope with cancer-related cognitive problems at work, as did professionals in their attempt at supporting cancer survivors facing these problems. Various needs of cancer survivors (e.g., supportive care options, acknowledgment by others) and professionals (e.g., improvement of expertise, clarity about referral pathways) regarding cancer-related cognitive problems at work were mentioned.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the growing number of working cancer survivors dealing with cancer-related cognitive problems, it is essential to sustain their employability. Therefore, cognitive rehabilitation interventions should be developed, taking functioning at work into account. Knowledge amongst professionals regarding cancer-related cognitive problems, as well as coordination of care for cancer-related cognitive problems, should be improved. Ensuring professional education regarding cancer-related cognitive problems, within both the healthcare and occupational setting, is of utmost importance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Support for working cancer survivors who experience cancer-related cognitive problems might increase their employability in the longer term.