Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34392427›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: prospective predictors for return-to-work three years after cancer rehabilitation.

Anneke Ullrich, Hilke Maria Rath, Ullrich Otto, Christa Kerschgens, Martin Raida, Christa Hagen-Aukamp, Corinna Bergelt

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anneke UllrichDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. a.ullrich@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1759-4461
Hilke Maria RathDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Ullrich OttoRehabilitation Clinics Hartenstein GmbH, Clinic Quellental, Bad Wildungen, Germany.
Christa KerschgensVivantes Rehabilitation Clinic GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Martin RaidaHELIOS Rehabilitation Clinic Bergisch-Land, Wuppertal, Germany.
Christa Hagen-AukampNiederrhein Rehabilitation Clinic, Korschenbroich, Germany.
Corinna BergeltDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEHelios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal · DEKlinik Niederrhein · DEVivantes Klinikum · DEWerner-Wicker-Klinik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed at (1) investigating the work status of men treated by radical prostatectomy due to diagnosis of localized prostate cancer (LPCa) three years after having attended a cancer rehabilitation program and (2) identifying prospective risk factors for not working at this time point.

methodsIn a longitudinal, questionnaire-based multicenter study, 519 working-age LPCa survivors reported on their work status 12 and 36 months following rehabilitation. Chi-square tests/t tests and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to identify prospective factors associated with not working at 36 months follow-up.

resultsNearly three quarter of LPCa survivors (N = 377, 73%) worked 3 years after post-acute rehabilitation. Most participants (N = 365, 71%) showed continuous return-to-work (RTW) patterns as they worked both 1 and 3 years following rehabilitation. Multivariable regression analysis revealed older age, low or middle socio-economic status as well as resigned and unambitious work behavior and fatigue at the time of attending the rehabilitation program to be prospective factors for not working at 36 months follow-up. Low socio-economic status [Odds ratio (OR) 4.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.07-11.16] and unambitious work behavior [OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.16-9.31] were the strongest predictors.

conclusionLong-term work retention is a realistic goal among LPCa survivors. The results contribute to the identification of at-risk LPCa survivors early in the RTW process. Special attention should be paid to social inequality. Further, interventions related to the management of fatigue and work-related coping styles could improve long-term RTW, as these were relevant, but potentially modifiable factors impeding work retention.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsProstatic NeoplasmsAgedChild, PreschoolHumansInfantMaleProspective StudiesProstateReturn to WorkSurvivorsEmploymentLong termProstate cancerRehabilitationReturn to workSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID34392427
PMCPMC8636403
OpenAlexW3194654069

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.