Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33090355›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021

The Use and Perceived Usefulness of an Online Toolbox Targeted at Employers (MiLES Intervention) for Enhancing Successful Return to Work of Cancer Survivors.

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

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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
  9. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M A GreidanusDepartment Public and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.a.greidanus@amsterdamumc.nl.
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, The Netherlands.
M H W Frings-DresenDepartment Public and Occupational Health/Coronel 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, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven, Belgium.
S BrouwersDepartment Public and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A G E M de BoerDepartment Public and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S J TammingaDepartment Public and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe MiLES intervention is a web-based intervention targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing successful return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the employers' use and perceived usefulness of the MiLES intervention.

methodsEmployer representatives (e.g. Human Resource managers and supervisors) were given access to the MiLES intervention, which contains, among others, interactive videos, conversation checklists and tailored tips. After six weeks, an online questionnaire gathered data on employers' use and the perceived usefulness of the intervention. In-depth qualitative data on these topics were gathered during semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using a content analysis.

resultsThirty-one eligible employers were included. Twenty-two of them filled out the questionnaire and twenty were interviewed. Typically, employers used the intervention 2-3 times, for 26 min per visit. The usefulness of the intervention scored 7.6 out of 10 points, and all employers would recommend it to colleagues. Employers' use decreased when support needs were low and when the intervention did not correspond with their specific situation (e.g. complex reintegration trajectories). Employers perceived the intervention to be supporting and practically oriented. They appreciated the fact that the intervention was web-based and combined visual and textual content. The possibility of consulting specialized services for complex situations would further enhance its usefulness.

conclusionThe MiLES intervention provides employers with a useful tool in their daily practice. Its effectiveness for enhancing employers' managerial skills and cancer survivors' successful RTW is subject for further research.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsReturn to WorkCommunicationEmploymentFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedCancer survivorsEmploymentInternet-based interventionReturn to workSick leave

Identifiers

PMID33090355
PMCPMC8172399
OpenAlexW3093874692

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.