Design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored clinical support intervention to enhance return to work for gastrointestinal cancer patients

Tools to assess employment readiness for colorectal cancer survivors: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The ability to return to work and remain at work is an important recovery milestone after a cancer diagnosis. With the projected number of colorectal cancer patients of working age likely to increase, it is important to identify when a person is ready to resume work. There are many employment-related tools available to help people return to work after injury or illness; however, it is unknown which may be suitable for a person with colorectal cancer.

AIM

To identify tools related to employment readiness in colorectal cancer survivors and to chart the relevant factors of employment assessed by these tools.

METHOD

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Medline, the Cochrane library and PsycINFO using search terms around cancer, survivorship and employment to identify all peer-reviewed articles published in English up to June 2022.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies used a total of 77 tools focused on assessing employment issues experienced by people with cancer in general. Four tools were used with colorectal cancer survivors. None considered all relevant employment-related factors for colorectal cancer survivors.

CONCLUSION

Tools used to identify return-to-work and remain-at-work were not specific to colorectal cancer. There are a range of existing tools that collate some, but not all, of the domains and outcome criteria required to meet the employment needs of colorectal cancer survivors. To optimize work outcomes for the working colorectal cancer population, a specified tool is warranted.

Efficacy of Work-Related Support Rehabilitation for Patients with Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction The efficacy of work-related support rehabilitation for patients with cancer remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of work-related support rehabilitation on the quality of life in patients with cancer.

Methods We have searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Ebsco, and Cochrane library databases through August 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of work-related support rehabilitation on the quality of life in patients with cancer. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

Results Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with usual care for cancer patients, work-related support is associated with significantly improved quality of life physical score (PCS, standard mean difference [SMD]=0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.06 to 0.37; P=0.005) and reduced quality of life pain (SMD=−0.16; 95% CI=−0.31 to 0; P=0.04), but showed no obvious impact on quality of life mental score (MCS, SMD=0; 95% CI=−0.28 to 0.28; P=0.98), time of return to work (SMD=−0.78; 95% CI=−2.71 to 1.14; P=0.43), or the scores of work ability (SMD=−0.01; 95% CI=−0.16 to 9.09; P=0.13) and work limitation (SMD=0.12; 95% CI=−0.16 to 0.40; P=0.41).

Conclusions Work-related support rehabilitation may be effective to improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

Psychological and educational support for cancer patients who return to work: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience challenges when they return to work (RTW) following cancer diagnosis and treatment. Psycho-educational support is important to facilitate the RTW process. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review examined published reports on psycho-educational support for patients with cancer who RTW. METHODS: We followed the preferred reported items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement and the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), and ICHUSHI and performed manual searches. RESULTS: We retrieved 1,586 articles and retained 48 for analysis (published January 2000 to December 2020). Physicians, occupational physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists provide considerable support in hospitals. Delivery modes included individual, face-to-face, and workbook. Psychological support included emotional, stress coping, counseling, and knowledge. Educational support included information or advice provision, communication skills, problem discussion, and work planning. Employment status was typically the primary outcome. We included 50 measurement scales across quality of life, cognitive functioning and illness, self-efficacy, psychological distress, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This review elucidated psycho-educational support for patients with cancer who RTW, and measurement tools for related effects. Based on the characteristics of the psycho-educational support revealed in this study, future studies should examine the development, intervention, and implementation of support programs for patients’ RTW.

Exploration of interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

With the increasing incidence and earlier onset of cancer, more and more cancer patients are facing the problems of return-to-work. This review is to explore the types, contents, and results of return-to-work interventions for cancer patients.

METHODS

This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR List. Three Chinese databases and five English databases were searched from the establishment of databases to 31 March, 2021. Article selection and data extraction were conducted by two researchers.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies and 1916 cancer patients with mainly breast and gastrointestinal cancer were included. According to the contents, interventions could be divided into four types: (1) physical interventions (n = 6), including high-intensity exercise, low-to-moderate intensity exercise, yoga, and upper limb functional training, (2) psychological interventions (n = 2), including early active individualized psychosocial support and mindfulness-based recovery, (3) vocational interventions (n = 14), including making work plans, educational leaflets, vocational consultations, electronic health intervention, and interventions targeting at employers, (4) multidisciplinary interventions (n = 10), including any combination of above interventions. Physical exercises, making working plans, vocational consultations, educational leaflets, two combinations of vocational and physical interventions were validated to have positive results in enhancing cancer patients' return-to-work.

CONCLUSIONS

Return-to-work interventions for cancer patients are diversified and can be divided into physical, psychological, vocational, and multidisciplinary interventions. Medical staffs can utilize physical exercises, making working plans, vocational consultation, educational leaflets, combinations of vocational and physical interventions to enhance cancer patients' return-to-work. Other interventions still need to be developed and validated.

Is a tailored work-related support intervention feasible in everyday clinical practice? The experience of healthcare professionals and patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Work is valued as an important feature in life, however patients diagnosed with cancer can experience work-related problems. We developed a work-related support intervention to support those in need.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the performed tailored GIRONA (Gastro Intestinal cancer patients Receiving Occupational support Near and After diagnosis) intervention and to describe the experiences of those receiving the work-related support and of those providing it.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was used to survey the feasibility of the intervention of the support recipients (patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer) and the support providers (healthcare professionals including: oncology nurses and oncological occupational physicians). Five themes were covered: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality and integration of Bowen's feasibility model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients, 14 oncology nurses and 4 oncological occupational physicians, shared their experiences about the tailored work-related support intervention. This intervention was generally perceived as positive and feasible by the participants. Some patients received work-related support despite not experiencing severe problems; others mentioned that they received no such support even though they did need it. Despite positive experiences, there are some barriers to tackle, such as length of consultation, timing of the initiation of work-related support and embedding the oncological occupational physician within the clinical setting.

CONCLUSION

According to the healthcare professionals involved, GIRONA is feasible, however some practical barriers were mentioned. The intervention was perceived as positive by both patients and healthcare professionals, but the tailored component could be further improved to better support those in need of work-related support.

Effectiveness of a Tailored Work-Related Support Intervention for Patients Diagnosed with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness on return to work (RTW) of an early tailored work-related support intervention in patients diagnosed with curative gastrointestinal cancer. Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken, in which patients were assigned randomly to the intervention or the control group (usual care). The intervention encompassed three psychosocial work-related support meetings, starting before treatment. Five self-reported questionnaires were sent over twelve months of follow-up. Primary outcome was days until RTW (fulltime or partial) and secondary outcomes included work status, quality of life, work ability, and work limitations. Descriptive analysis, Kaplan-Meier analysis, relative risk ratio and linear mixed models were applied. Results Participants (N = 88) had a mean age of 55 years; 67% were male and the most common cancer type was colon cancer (66%). Of the participants, 42 were randomized to the intervention group. The median time from sick leave until RTW was 233 days (range 187-279 days) for the control group, versus 190 days (range 139-240 days) for the intervention group (log-rank p = 0.37). The RTW rate at twelve months after baseline was 83.3% for the intervention group and 73.5% for the control group. Work limitations did statistically differ between the groups over time (p = 0.01), but quality of life and work ability did not. Conclusion Patients in the intervention group seem to take fewer days to RTW, albeit not to a statistically significant extent.Trial registration Trial NL4920 (NTR5022) (Dutch Trial Register https://www.trialregister.nl ).

The MiLES intervention targeting employers to promote successful return to work of employees with cancer: design of a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Employers express a need for support to facilitate the return to work (RTW) process of employees with cancer. We have developed the MiLES intervention, an online toolbox targeting employers during the RTW of employees with cancer. To evaluate the MiLES intervention, we propose the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of this pilot is to determine whether a future RCT to study the effectiveness of this intervention on successful RTW of employees with cancer is feasible. Secondary aims are to obtain preliminary results on the effectiveness of the intervention and to determine the sample size needed in a future definitive RCT.

METHODS

A pilot RCT with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Using medical specialists at Dutch hospitals, we aim to enrol 90 participants diagnosed with cancer (<2 years earlier) aged 18-63 years who are in paid employment with an employer and who are currently sick-listed or partly sick-listed for <1 year. Participants randomised to the intervention group will be asked to inform their employer about the online toolbox supporting employers during the RTW process of employees with cancer. Participants in the control group will receive 'care as usual' from their employer. All measures will be assessed at the level of the employee using questionnaires at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. The feasibility of a future RCT will be determined using criteria concerning method-related uncertainties and acceptability of the study protocol. The primary effect measure will be successful RTW (that is, RTW perceived as being successful by the cancer survivor themselves). This effect measure will be used to perform the sample size calculation for a future definitive RCT.

DISCUSSION

The design is proposed to determine the feasibility to study the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention targeting employers on the successful RTW of employees diagnosed with cancer. This pilot RCT can increase the probability of a successful future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the intervention and potentially obviate the need to carry out an unfeasible and resource-intensive study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register (NTR): NL6758, NTR7627. Registered on 30 October 2018.

Supporting employers to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors: development of a web-based intervention (MiLES intervention)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop an intervention targeting employers, with the aim of enhancing cancer survivors' return to work (RTW).

METHODS

Intervention Mapping was used to combine information gathered from several procedures involving numerous stakeholders, for example, employers, cancer survivors, oncological occupational physicians, and e-health experts.

RESULTS

Employers indicated that they require tailored support during four RTW phases: (1) disclosure, (2) treatment, (3) RTW planning, and (4) actual RTW. The most important employer actions were identified for each RTW phase, for instance, "communicate," "support practically," and "assess work ability," and thereafter formulated as the performance objectives of the intervention. The trans-theoretical model of change was used as a theoretical framework, and several methodologies were employed to induce the desired behavior change, for example modeling, tailoring, and active learning. Subsequently, a web-based intervention with interactive videos, conversation checklists, links to reliable external sources, and succinct, tailored tips and information was developed and adjusted on the basis of pre-tests with different stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was developed with input from employers and all relevant stakeholders in the RTW of cancer survivors. The systematic, step-wise development resulted in a succinct and easily accessible intervention targeting the most important employer actions during all RTW phases. As such, the intervention corresponds with employers' needs and preferences in practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

By providing employers with support, the intervention could well be the missing link in efforts to optimize the work participation of cancer survivors.

Process evaluation of a tailored work-related support intervention for patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer

Purpose

To perform a process evaluation of a tailored work-related support intervention for patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer.

Methods

The intervention comprised three tailored psychosocial work-related support meetings. To outline the process evaluation of this intervention, we used six key components: recruitment, context, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. Data were collected using questionnaires, checklists and research logbooks and were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results

In total, 16 hospitals, 33 nurses and 7 oncological occupational physicians (OOPs) participated. Analysis of the six key components revealed that the inclusion rate of eligible patients was 47%. Thirty-eight intervention patients were included: 35 actually had a first meeting, 32 had a second and 17 had a third. For 31 patients (89%), the first meeting was face to face, as per protocol. However, in only 32% of the cases referred to support type A (oncological nurse) and 13% of the cases referred to support type B (OOP), the first meeting was before the start of the treatment, as per protocol. The average duration of the support type A meetings was around the pre-established 30 min; for the OOPs, the average was 50 min. Protocol was easy to follow according to the healthcare professionals. Overall, the patients considered the intervention useful.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the strategy of tailored work-related support is appreciated by both patients and healthcare professionals and applicable in clinical practice.

Implications for Cancer survivors

The intervention was appreciated by patients; however, whether the timing of the work-related support was adequate (i.e. before treatment was started) requires further research.

Trial registration

NTR5022.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11764-019-00797-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Return to Work Interventions for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and a Methodological Critique

Cancer patients are more at risk of being unemployed or having difficulties to return to work (RTW) compared to individuals without health concerns, and is thus a major public health issue. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and describe the interventions developed specifically to help cancer patients to RTW after treatment. Two researchers independently screened the articles for inclusion and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists were used to assess the methodology of the included studies. Ten manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The type of studies were three quasi-experimental studies, three longitudinal studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a qualitative study. RTW interventions were conducted in or outside the hospital (n = 6 and 3 respectively), or both (n = 1). Improvements in RTW were only observed in quasi-experimental studies. No improvement in RTW was noted in RCTs, nor in other measures (e.g., quality of life, fatigue). Lack of statistically significant improvement does not necessarily reflect reality, but may be attributed to non-adapted research methods. This systematic review underscores the need for researches in the RTW field to reach a consensus on RTW criteria and their assessment. Recommendations to this effect are suggested.

Work cessation after cancer diagnosis: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Long-term work maintenance among cancer survivors is important for patients, their families and society.

AIMS

To assess the risk of work cessation among workers at baseline in cancer survivors at 2 and 4 years after diagnosis compared with a matched cancer-free control group.

METHODS

Baseline measurements for this historical prospective study were drawn from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics 1995 National Census, followed up until 2011. Patients who died before the end of 2011 were excluded from the study. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the study outcome were assessed by binary logistic regression analyses, controlled for age, sex, ethnicity, years of education and socioeconomic position.

RESULTS

Cancer was associated with not working at 2 years after diagnosis (adjusted OR = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59-1.84, P < 0.001), while only mild attenuation was seen at 4 years after diagnosis (adjusted OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.46-1.68, P < 0.001). Analysis by cancer type revealed that patients diagnosed with central nervous system (adjusted OR = 3.42, 95% CI 2.41-4.86, P < 0.001), renal (adjusted OR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.38-3.16, P < 0.001), breast (adjusted OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.76-2.38, P < 0.001) and haematologic malignancies (adjusted OR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.59-2.61, P < 0.001) showed the greatest magnitude effect at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

These results emphasize the need for tailored interventions in order to enhance work maintenance, even among patients who are working at baseline and with very long-term survivors.

Prognostic factors for return to work and work disability among colorectal cancer survivors; A systematic review

Background

Colorectal cancer is diagnosed progressively in employed patients due to screening programs and increasing retirement age. The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors for return to work and work disability in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

The research protocol was published at PROSPERO with registration number CRD42017049757. A systematic review of cohort and case-control studies in colorectal cancer patients above 18 years, who were employed when diagnosed, and who had a surgical resection with curative intent were included. The primary outcome was return to work or work disability. Potentially prognostic factors were included in the analysis if they were measured in at least three studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies tool. A qualitative synthesis analysis was performed due to heterogeneity between studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results

Eight studies were included with a follow-up period of 26 up to 520 weeks. (Neo)adjuvant therapy, higher age, and more comorbidities had a significant negative influence on return to work. A previous period of unemployment, extensive surgical resection and postoperative complications significantly increased the risk of work disability. The quality of evidence for these prognostic factors was considered very low to moderate.

Conclusion

Health care professionals need to be aware of these prognostic factors to select patients eligible for timely intensified rehabilitation in order to optimize the return to work process and prevent work disability.

Development of a tailored work-related support intervention for gastrointestinal cancer patients

Aim is the development of a work-related support intervention, tailored to the severity of work-related problems of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treated with curative intent. Two methods were used: (1) Work-related problems were identified from the literature and submitted to an expert panel during a modified Delphi study. Experts allocated work-related problems into degrees of severity: mild, severe or complex. In addition, experts indicated which health care professional should provide the tailored support: (2) These outcomes were combined with existing interventions to design the tailored intervention. Semi-structured interviews with experts were conducted to assess whether the intervention was comprehensive, and feasible for daily practice. A decision diagram measuring severity of work-related problems was developed based on the modified Delphi study with 44 experts, encompassing social, disease and occupational problems. Based on the degree of severity, support was provided by: an oncological nurse (mild), oncological occupational physician (severe) or multidisciplinary team (complex). The intervention encompassed three individual meetings in the clinical setting and was considered comprehensive and feasible by 12 experts. The intervention is innovative in combining oncological and occupational care in the clinic and being tailored to the needs of GI cancer patients with specific work-related problems.

Return to work for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and transformed indolent lymphoma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Background

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for patients with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or transformed indolent lymphoma (TIL). The treatment is mainly considered for younger patients still available for the work market. In this study, social outcomes after ASCT in terms of return to work (RTW) are described.

Patients and methods

Information from national administrative registers was combined with clinical information on patients, who received ASCT for relapse of DLBCL or TIL between 2000 and 2012. A total of 164 patients were followed until RTW, disability or old-age pension, death, or December 31, 2015, whichever came first. A total of 205 patients were followed with disability pension as the event of interest. Cox models were used to determine cause-specific hazards.

Results

During follow-up, 82 (50%) patients returned to work. The rate of returning to work in the first year following ASCT was decreased for patients being on sick leave at the time of relapse (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3 [0.2;0.5]) and increased for patients aged ≥55 years (HR 1.9 [1.1;3.3]). In all, 56 (27%) patients were granted disability pension. Being on sick leave at the time of relapse was positively associated with receiving a disability pension in the first 2 years after ASCT (HR 3.7 [1.8;7.7]).

Conclusion

Patients on sick leave at the time of relapse have a poorer prognosis regarding RTW and have a higher rate of disability pension. Furthermore, patients >55 are more likely to RTW compared to younger patients. These results indicate an unmet need for focused social rehabilitation.

Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave

BACKGROUND

To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.