Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22699884›Full record

Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2012

A hospital-based work support intervention to enhance the return to work of cancer patients: a process evaluation.

S J Tamminga, A G E M de Boer, M M E M Bos, G Fons, J J E M Kitzen, P W Plaisier, J H A M Verbeek, M H W Frings-Dresen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Informing the development of multidisciplinary interventions to help breast cancer patients return to work: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

S J TammingaCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.j.tamminga@amc.nl
A G E M de Boer
M M E M Bos
G Fons
J J E M Kitzen
P W Plaisier
J H A M Verbeek
M H W Frings-Dresen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a process evaluation of a hospital-based work support intervention for cancer patients aimed at enhancing return to work and quality of life. The intervention involves the delivery of patient education and support at the hospital and involves the improvement of the communication between the treating physician and the occupational physician. In addition, the research team asked patient's occupational physician to organise a meeting with the patient and the supervisor to make a concrete gradual return-to-work plan.

methodsEligible were cancer patients treated with curative intent and who have paid work. Data were collected from patients assigned to the intervention group (N = 65) and from nurses who delivered the patient education and support at the hospital (N = 4) by means of questionnaires, nurses' reports, and checklists. Data were quantitatively and qualitatively analysed.

resultsA total of 47 % of all eligible patients participated. Nurses delivered the patient education and support in 85 % of the cases according to the protocol. In 100 % of the cases at least one letter was sent to the occupational physician. In 10 % of the cases the meeting with the patient, the occupational physician and the supervisor took place. Patients found the intervention in general very useful and nurses found the intervention feasible to deliver.

conclusionsWe found that a hospital- based work support intervention was easily accepted in usual psycho-oncological care but that it proved difficult to involve the occupational physician. Patients were highly satisfied and nurses found the intervention feasible.

Indexed as

EmploymentReturn to WorkAdolescentAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNetherlandsNursesPatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsProcess Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID22699884
PMCPMC3484279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.