ArticleEuropean journal of cancer care2021
Validation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 in cancer patients.
Article in European journal of cancer care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resilience and physical-functional HRQoL in cirrhosis: a cross-sectional study of nursing-relevant direct and indirect associations linked to psychological distress and frailty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Roles of Psychiatry, Dietary, and Oncology Services in Occupational Medicine: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Feasibility and acceptability of a self-management intervention supporting return to work for women with breast cancer.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Identifying palliative home care needs of patients with advanced cancer: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 into Brazilian Portuguese in a general population.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Observational
- Article
- Validation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 in cancer patients.European journal of cancer care · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ), measuring the percentage of time a worker has difficulties in meeting the work demands for a given health state, has shown strong reliability and validity in various populations with different chronic conditions. The present study aims to validate the WRFQ in working cancer patients.
methodsA validation study of the WRFQ 2.0 was conducted, using baseline data from the longitudinal Work Life after Cancer study. Structural validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and discriminant validity (hypothesis testing) were evaluated.
results352 working cancer patients, most of them diagnosed with breast cancer (48%) and 58% in a job with mainly non-manual tasks, showed a mean WRFQ score of 78.6 (SD = 17.1), which means that they had on average difficulties for 78.6% of the time they spent working. Good internal consistency (α = 0.96) and acceptable to good fit for both the four and five-factor model (CFA) was found. The WRFQ distinguished between cancer patients reporting good vs. poor health (80.3 vs. 73.0, p = 0.001), low vs. high fatigue (82.0 vs. 72.2, p < 0.001), no vs. clinical depression (80.4 vs. 58.8, p < 0.001) and low vs. high cognitive symptoms (86.1 vs. 64.7, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure work functioning in working cancer patients. Further psychometric research on responsiveness is needed to support its use in health practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.