Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816271›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2016

Am I ready to return to work? Assisting cancer survivors to determine work readiness.

Mary Stergiou-Kita, Cheryl Pritlove, D Linn Holness, Bonnie Kirsh, Dwayne van Eerd, Andrea Duncan, Jennifer Jones

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Return to Work Interventions for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and a Methodological Critique.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Mary Stergiou-KitaDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca.
Cheryl PritloveSchool of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
D Linn HolnessDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bonnie KirshDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Dwayne van EerdInstitute of Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrea DuncanDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Jennifer JonesCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA critical initial step in work re-entry involves the determination of work readiness. Cancer survivors have requested increased health care provider involvement in their work readiness decisions. However, there has been no exploration of current practices in determining work readiness, and thus no specific recommendations regarding how to assist survivors in answering the question: Am I ready to return to work?

methodsTo explore return to work following cancer and the workplace supports survivors require, we completed an exploratory qualitative study. We conducted semi-structured interviews with (i) cancer survivors (n = 16) and (ii) health care/vocational service providers (n = 16). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes specific to work readiness are discussed.

resultsThree key processes were deemed relevant to determining work readiness by health care providers and survivors: (1) assessing functional abilities in relation to job demands; (2) identifying survivor strengths and barriers to return to work; and (3) identifying supports available in the workplace. Challenges to work readiness determinations, were described by survivors and providers, related to: (i) the complexity of cancer, (ii) the accuracy of work readiness determinations, and (iii) the lack of established processes for addressing work goals.

conclusionsHealth care providers need to work collaboratively with survivors to determine if they are physically, cognitively, and emotionally ready to return to work, and with workplaces to determine if they are prepared to provide the necessary supports. Further stakeholder collaboration is also warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Supports from health care providers in determining work readiness can ensure survivors do not return to work either "too early" or "too late."

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchReturn to WorkSurvivorsCancerCancer survivorsEmployment supportsReturn to workWork readiness

Identifiers

PMID26816271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.