Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31938966›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2020

Supporting employers to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors: development of a web-based intervention (MiLES intervention).

M A Greidanus, A G E M de Boer, C M Tiedtke, M H W Frings-Dresen, A E de Rijk, S J Tamminga

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Supporting the Return to Work of Breast Cancer Survivors: From a Theoretical to a Clinical Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M A GreidanusCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.a.greidanus@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8953-8824
A G E M de BoerCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C M TiedtkeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Environment & Health, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven, Belgium.
M H W Frings-DresenCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A E de RijkDepartment of Social Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Research Institute Primary Care and Public Health (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, Netherlands.
S J TammingaCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University · NLNetherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to develop an intervention targeting employers, with the aim of enhancing cancer survivors' return to work (RTW).

methodsIntervention 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.

resultsEmployers 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsEmploymentFemaleHumansInternet-Based InterventionMaleNeoplasmsReturn to WorkCancerCancer SurvivorsEmployerInternet-Based InterventionIntervention MappingReturn to work

Identifiers

PMID31938966
PMCPMC7182637
OpenAlexW2999336417

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.