Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27250336›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2016

The Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS): a Pre-test Study.

Merel de Jong, Sietske J Tamminga, Angela G E M de Boer, Monique H W Frings-Dresen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. "Returning beyond cancer"-a journey of professional reinvention for nurses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quality of Working Life of cancer survivors: associations with health- and work-related variables.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    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

4 authors.

Merel de JongCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. merel.dejong@amc.uva.nl.
Sietske J TammingaCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Angela G E M de BoerCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique H W Frings-DresenCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReturning to and continuing work is important to many cancer survivors, but also represents a challenge. We know little about subjective work outcomes and how cancer survivors perceive being returned to work. Therefore, we developed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). Our aim was to pre-test the items of the initial QWLQ-CS on acceptability and comprehensiveness. In addition, item retention was performed by pre-assessing the relevance scores and response distributions of the items in the QWLQ-CS.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted after cancer survivors, who had returned to work, filled in the 102 items of the QWLQ-CS. To improve acceptability and comprehensiveness, the semi-structured interview inquired about items that were annoying, difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. If cancer survivors had difficulty explaining their opinion or emotion about an item, the interviewer used verbal probing technique to investigate the cancer survivor's underlying thoughts. The cancer survivors' comments on the items were analysed, and items were revised accordingly. Decisions on item retention regarding the relevance of items and the response distributions were made by means of pre-set decision rules.

resultsThe 19 cancer survivors (53 % male) had a mean age of 51 ± 11 years old. They were diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 with lymphoma, leukaemia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer. Acceptability of the QWLQ-CS was good - none of the items were annoying - but 73 items were considered difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. To improve acceptability, for instance, the authors replaced the phrase 'disease' with 'health situation' in several items. Consequently, comprehensiveness was improved by the authors rephrasing and adjusting items by adding clarifying words, such as 'in the work situation'. The pre-assessment of the relevance scores resulted in a sufficient number of cancer survivors indicating the items as relevant to their quality of working life, and no evident indication for uneven response distributions. Therefore, all items were retained.

conclusionsThe 104 items of the preliminary QWLQ-CS were found relevant, acceptable and comprehensible by cancer survivors who have returned to work. The QWLQ-CS is now suitable for larger sample sizes of cancer survivors, which is necessary to test the psychometric properties of this questionnaire.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsColonic NeoplasmsEmotionsEmploymentFemaleHumansLeukemiaLymphomaMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsCancer survivorsQuality of working lifeQuestionnaireReturn-to-workWork continuation

Identifiers

PMID27250336
PMCPMC4890330

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.