Pilot implementation of MiLES: a web-based intervention targeted at managers with the aim of enhancing the successful return to work of employees with cancer

BACKGROUND

MiLES is a web-based intervention targeted at managers with the aim of enhancing the successful return to work (RTW) of employees with cancer. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing MiLES in organizations, from a manager's perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MiLES was implemented as a pilot in four organizations for six weeks. Sixteen managers were included, of which fourteen were interviewed regarding their perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementation of MiLES in their organization. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed with content analysis.

RESULTS

The managers experienced barriers to and facilitators of implementation related to: (1) implementation responsibilities, (2) the intervention's content, and (3) organizational characteristics. Regarding implementation responsibilities, management board approval and an organizational infrastructure with distinct described implementation responsibilities were perceived as facilitators. Regarding the intervention's content, its accessibility, user-friendliness and completeness were perceived as facilitators. If the content did not meet the manager's specific needs, this was perceived as a barrier. Regarding organizational characteristics, several intangible (e.g., added value of MiLES within different organizations) and tangible (e.g., integration into absenteeism registration) organizational characteristics were perceived as facilitators. The absence of a quiet place to use MiLES was perceived as barrier.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of MiLES in organizations may benefit from an infrastructure within the organization that defines responsibilities regarding intervention delivery to managers of employees with cancer. Such an infrastructure should be aligned to existing organizational structures. As per interviewed managers, MiLES has added value in diverse organizations.

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.

Identification of actions to be taken by managers to facilitate the return to work of cancer survivors: Consensus between managers and cancer survivors

Background

Managers are considered to be main stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. However, the perspectives of cancer survivors and managers differ on what managerial actions should be taken during the RTW of cancer survivors. This difference might put effective collaboration and successful RTW at risk. Therefore, this study aims to reach consensus among managers and cancer survivors on the managerial actions to be taken during the four different RTW phases of cancer survivors (i.e., Disclosure, Treatment, RTW plan, Actual RTW).

Methods

The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) was implemented with managers and cancer survivors (hereafter referred to as “experts”). An initial list of 24 actions was derived from a previous study. Firstly, for each action, fifteen experts were asked to indicate individually how important this action is per RTW phase (Likert scale from 1 – “Not important at all” to 6 – “Very important”). Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% (i.e., ≥ twelve experts) of the experts rated that action ≥5. Secondly, for each phase of the RTW process, the 15 actions with the highest percentage were discussed with eight experts during the collective consultation, except for the actions that already reached consensus. After discussion, the experts voted whether each action was important (“yes” / “no”) and consensus required ≥ 87.5% (i.e., ≥ seven experts) of the experts to consider an action as important.

Results

Twenty-five managerial actions were finally retained for at least one of the RTW phases, e.g., Disclosure: “respect privacy” and “radiate a positive attitude”, Treatment: “show appreciation” and “allow sufficient sick leave”, RTW Plan: “tailor” and “communicate”, and Actual RTW: “support practically” and “balance interest”.

Conclusion

Cancer survivors and managers reached consensus on the importance of 25 managerial actions, distributed into each phase of the RTW process. These actions should be considered an interplay of managerial actions by different stakeholders on the part of the employer (e.g., direct supervisor, HR-manager), and should be a responsibility that is shared by these stakeholders. The collective implementation of these actions within the company will help cancer survivors feel fully supported.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14271-w.

A randomised feasibility trial of an employer-based intervention for enhancing successful return to work of cancer survivors (MiLES intervention)

BACKGROUND

Employers express a need for support during sickness absence and return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. Therefore, a web-based intervention (MiLES) targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing cancer survivors' successful RTW has been developed. This study aimed to assess feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Also preliminary results on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention were obtained.

METHODS

A randomised feasibility trial of 6 months was undertaken with cancer survivors aged 18-63 years, diagnosed with cancer < 2 years earlier, currently in paid employment, and sick-listed < 1 year. Participants were randomised to an intervention group, with their employer receiving the MiLES intervention, or to a waiting-list control group (2:1). Feasibility of a future definitive RCT was determined on the basis of predefined criteria related to method and protocol-related uncertainties (e.g. reach, retention, appropriateness). The primary effect measure (i.e. successful RTW) and secondary effect measures (e.g. quality of working life) were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Thirty-five cancer survivors were included via medical specialists (4% of the initially invited group) and open invitations, and thereafter randomised to the intervention (n = 24) or control group (n = 11). Most participants were female (97%) with breast cancer (80%) and a permanent employment contract (94%). All predefined criteria for feasibility of a future definitive RCT were achieved, except that concerning the study's reach (90 participants). After 6 months, 92% of the intervention group and 100% of the control group returned to work (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81-1.03); no difference were found with regard to secondary effect measures.

CONCLUSIONS

With the current design a future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention on successful RTW of cancer survivors is not feasible, since recruitment of survivors fell short of the predefined minimum for feasibility. There was selection bias towards survivors at low risk of adverse work outcomes, which reduced generalisability of the outcomes. An alternative study design is needed to study effectiveness of the MiLES intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register ( NL6758/NTR7627 ).

The Use and Perceived Usefulness of an Online Toolbox Targeted at Employers (MiLES Intervention) for Enhancing Successful Return to Work of Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

The MiLES intervention is a web-based intervention targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing successful return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the employers' use and perceived usefulness of the MiLES intervention.

METHODS

Employer representatives (e.g. Human Resource managers and supervisors) were given access to the MiLES intervention, which contains, among others, interactive videos, conversation checklists and tailored tips. After six weeks, an online questionnaire gathered data on employers' use and the perceived usefulness of the intervention. In-depth qualitative data on these topics were gathered during semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using a content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one eligible employers were included. Twenty-two of them filled out the questionnaire and twenty were interviewed. Typically, employers used the intervention 2-3 times, for 26 min per visit. The usefulness of the intervention scored 7.6 out of 10 points, and all employers would recommend it to colleagues. Employers' use decreased when support needs were low and when the intervention did not correspond with their specific situation (e.g. complex reintegration trajectories). Employers perceived the intervention to be supporting and practically oriented. They appreciated the fact that the intervention was web-based and combined visual and textual content. The possibility of consulting specialized services for complex situations would further enhance its usefulness.

CONCLUSION

The MiLES intervention provides employers with a useful tool in their daily practice. Its effectiveness for enhancing employers' managerial skills and cancer survivors' successful RTW is subject for further research.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11764-019-00844-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What Employer Actions Are Considered Most Important for the Return to Work of Employees with Cancer? A Delphi Study Among Employees and Employers

Purpose Employers are important stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of employees with cancer. However, it is unclear what employer actions are most important to that process. The objective, therefore, was to reach consensus on what employer actions are considered most important for the RTW of employees with cancer, by employers and employees separately. Methods A two-round online Delphi study was conducted with two expert panels: one with 23 employers and one with 29 employees with cancer. The results from each panel were analysed separately. Out of 24 suggested employer actions, participants selected the 10 they considered most important for RTW in each of the following RTW phases: (1) disclosure, (2) treatment, (3) RTW plan, and (4) actual RTW. The consensus threshold was set at ≥ 80% during the second round. Results The employer and employee expert panels both reached consensus on the importance of 'emotional support', 'practical support', 'allow sufficient sick leave', 'plan return to work', 'adjust expectations', 'assess work ability', and 'show appreciation'. Employers also reached consensus on 'communicate' and 'treat normally', and employees on 'handle unpredictability'. All these employer actions were considered to be specific for one to three RTW phases. Conclusions Employers reached consensus on the importance of nine employer actions, employees on eight. Both stakeholder perspectives showed great similarities, but did vary regarding important employer actions during the employee's treatment. We recommend developing interventions targeting the employer, meeting both employer and employee needs in each RTW phase, to enhance RTW support for employees with cancer.

Employers' experience of employees with cancer: trajectories of complex communication

Purpose

Remaining in paid work is of great importance for cancer survivors, and employers play a crucial role in achieving this. Return to work (RTW) is best seen as a process. This study aims to provide insight into (1) Dutch employers’ experiences with RTW of employees with cancer and (2) the employers’ needs for support regarding this process.

Methods

Thirty employer representatives of medium and large for-profit and non-profit organizations were interviewed to investigate their experiences and needs in relation to employees with cancer. A Grounded Theory approach was used.

Results

We revealed a trajectory of complex communication and decision-making during different stages, from the moment the employee disclosed that they had been diagnosed to the period after RTW, permanent disability, or the employee’s passing away. Employers found this process demanding due to various dilemmas. Dealing with an unfavorable diagnosis and balancing both the employer’s and the employee’s interests were found to be challenging. Two types of approach to support RTW of employees with cancer were distinguished: (1) a business-oriented approach and (2) a care-oriented approach. Differences in approach were related to differences in organizational structure and employer and employee characteristics. Employers expressed a need for communication skills, information, and decision-making skills to support employees with cancer.

Conclusions

The employers interviewed stated that dealing with an employee with cancer is demanding and that the extensive Dutch legislation on RTW did not offer all the support needed. We recommend providing them with easily accessible information on communication and leadership training to better support employees with cancer.

Implications for cancer survivors

• Supporting employers by training communication and decision-making skills and providing information on cancer will contribute to improving RTW support for employees with cancer.

• Knowing that the employer will usually be empathic when an employee reveals that they have been diagnosed with cancer, and that the employer also experiences difficulties and dilemmas, might lower the threshold to discuss wishes regarding disclosure, communication, and work issues.

• The interests of employer and employee in relation to RTW are interrelated; both have responsibility and a role to play, and are in need of support.