ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2022
Practice-Based Evidence to Support Return to Work in Cancer Patients.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Cancer Survivors' Return to Work and Well-Being: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- A scoping review on information and support needs regarding cancer and work: part II-needs of employers and professionals in supporting cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: International research emphasizes the importance of providing early, hospital-based support in return to work (RTW) for cancer patients. Even though oncology health professionals are aware of the scientific evidence, it remains unclear whether they implement this knowledge in current practice. This paper presents the knowledge and viewpoints of health care professionals (HCPs) on their potential role in their patients' RTW process. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with oncology HCPs were used to describe current practice. Results of these interviews served as input for focus group discussions with managers in oncology hospitals, which led to an agreement on of best practice. Results: This research had the participation of 75% of Belgian institutions involved in oncology health care services. Five themes were identified that influence care providers and staff to implement scientific evidence on RTW in cancer patients: (1) Opinions on the role that care institutions can take in RTW support; (2) Current content of RTW support during oncology care; (3) Scientific bases; (4) Barriers and success factors; and (5) Legislation and regulations. The key elements of the best practice included a generic approach adapted to the needs of the cancer patient supported by a RTW coordinator. Conclusions: Health care providers include RTW support in their current care, but in very varied ways. They follow a process that starts with setting the indication (meaning the identification of patients for whom the provision of work-related care would be useful) and ends with a clear objective agreed upon by HCPs and the patient. We recommend that specific points of interest be included in regulation at both the patient and hospital levels.
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.