Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32508005›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

The Successful Return-To-Work Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (I-RTW_CS): Development, Validity and Reproducibility.

Michiel A Greidanus, Angela G E M de Boer, Angelique E de Rijk, Sonja Brouwers, Theo M de Reijke, Marie José Kersten, Jean H G Klinkenbijl, Roy I Lalisang, Robert Lindeboom, Patricia J Zondervan and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer work after cancer global challenges and solutions white paper: key findings and recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quality of working life and adaptability of returning to work in nurse cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michiel 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
Angela G E M de BoerCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1942-6848
Angelique 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, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5828-0629
Sonja BrouwersCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3684-2192
Theo M de ReijkeDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-7361
Marie José KerstenDepartment of Hematology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Lymphoma and Myeloma Center Amsterdam (LYMMCARE), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-3802
Jean H G KlinkenbijlDepartment of Surgery, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2645-9309
Roy I LalisangDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9752-0947
Robert LindeboomDepartment of Clinical Methods and Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6710-7003
Patricia J ZondervanDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0812-078X
Monique H W Frings-DresenCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4134-4577
Sietske J TammingaCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2228-1187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer survivors' perspectives on a successful return to work (RTW) may not be captured in the common measure of RTW, namely time until RTW.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was therefore to develop an RTW outcome measure that reflects employed cancer survivors' perspectives, with items that could be influenced by an employer, i.e. the Successful Return-To-Work questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (I-RTW_CS), and to assess its construct validity and reproducibility.

methodsFirst, three focus groups with cancer survivors (n = 14) were organized to generate issues that may constitute successful RTW. Second, a two-round Delphi study among 108 cancer survivors was conducted to select the most important issues. Construct validity of the I-RTW_CS was assessed using correlations with a single-item measure of successful RTW and the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS; n = 57). Reproducibility (test-retest reliability) was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; n = 50).

resultsForty-eight issues were generated, of which seven were included: 'enjoyment in work'; 'work without affecting health'; 'confidence of employer without assumptions about work ability'; 'open communication with employer'; 'feeling welcome at work'; 'good work-life balance'; and 'joint satisfaction with the situation (employer and cancer survivor)'. Correlations with single-item successful RTW and QWLQ-CS were 0.58 and 0.85, respectively. The reproducibility showed an ICC of 0.72.

conclusionsThe I-RTW_CS provides an RTW outcome measure that includes cancer survivors' perspectives and weights its items on an individual basis, allowing a more meaningful evaluation of cancer survivors' RTW. This study provides preliminary evidence for its construct validity and reproducibility.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsReturn to WorkAdolescentAdultAgedDelphi TechniqueFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32508005
PMCPMC7478947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.