Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29321006›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Return to Work in Colorectal Cancer Patients.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Merel de JongCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Academic Medical Center, P.O. box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sietske J TammingaCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Academic Medical Center, P.O. box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert J J van EsDepartment of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Monique H W Frings-DresenCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Academic Medical Center, P.O. box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Angela G E M de BoerCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Academic Medical Center, P.O. box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. a.g.deboer@amc.uva.nl.
Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 2011-5228
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS).

methodsAn Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on QWLQ-CS data from a sample of employed cancer survivors to establish the final number of items and factorial structure of the QWLQ-CS. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. In a second sample of (self-)employed cancer survivors, construct validity was tested by convergent validity (correlations of QWLQ-CS with construct-related questionnaires), and discriminative validity (difference in QWLQ-CS scores between cancer survivors and employed people without cancer). In a subgroup of stable cancer survivors subtracted from the second sample, reproducibility was evaluated by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).

resultsEFA on QWLQ-CS data of 302 cancer survivors resulted in 23 items and five factors. The internal consistency of the QWLQ-CS was Cronbach's α = 0.91. Convergent validity on data of 130 cancer survivors resulted in r = 0.61-0.70. QWLQ-CS scores of these cancer survivors statistically differed (p = 0.04) from employed people without cancer (N = 45). Reproducibility of QWLQ-CS data from 87 cancer survivors demonstrated an ICC of 0.84 and a SEM of 9.59.

conclusionsThe five-factor QWLQ-CS with 23 items and adequate internal consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility at group level can be used in clinical and occupational healthcare, and research settings.

Indexed as

PsychometricsAdultAgedCancer SurvivorsEmploymentFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQuality of LifeReturn to WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer survivorsPsychometric propertiesQuality of working lifeQuestionnaireReturn to workWork continuation

Identifiers

PMID29321006
PMCPMC5763640
OpenAlexW2782912717

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.