Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42474939›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026

SusTained Employability in cancer Patients and their partnerS: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial into the Effectiveness of the STEPS Program.

Amber D Zegers, Pieter Coenen, Allard J van der Beek, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Ute Bültmann, Marianne de Maaker-Berkhof, Nina Bijker, Lisette M van Maurik, Liesbeth M Veenendaal, Ingrid E A M van Loon and 17 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

27 authors.

Amber D ZegersDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter CoenenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ute BültmannDepartment of Health Sciences, Community & Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marianne de Maaker-BerkhofDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nina BijkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lisette M van MaurikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth M VeenendaalDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Alexander Monro Hospital, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Ingrid E A M van LoonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Wouter K G LeclercqDepartment of General Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Peter W PlaisierDepartment of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Karin H HerbschlebDepartment of Medical Oncology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Iris C M van der PloegDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marieke E StraverDepartment of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Clasien BlomDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Haaglanden Medical Cancer Center, Location Antoniushove, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Gabriëlla de BoerDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Haaglanden Medical Cancer Center, Location Antoniushove, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Anne-Marie DietvorstDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Van Weel Bethesda Hospital, Dirksland, The Netherlands.
Mathijs P HendriksDepartment of Medical Oncology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline M TrompDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Baukje FlamelingDepartment of Medical Oncology, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Steve BoudewijnsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands.
Myrella VlenterieDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Martine F ThijsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Myra van LindeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christianne A R LokDepartment of Gynaecology, Center of Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Saskia F A DuijtsDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.duijts@iknl.nl.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 11558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer survivors experience challenges in establishing sustained employability, i.e., return to work and work retention. We evaluated the effectiveness of a stages-of-change-based work participation program (STEPS) to support sustained employability in cancer survivors.

methodsA two-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted among employees diagnosed with cancer 3-18 months earlier. Participants completed questionnaires pre-randomization, and at 6- and 12-month of follow-up (T1 and T2). Mixed-effects modeling compared STEPS with usual care on working hours (sustained employability) and secondary outcomes.

resultsOf 239 included participants, 123 were randomly assigned to STEPS and 116 to usual care. There were no meaningful differences in weekly working hours between the STEPS and control groups during follow-up. However, strict STEPS protocol adherence was related to working fewer hours per week across T1 and T2 (- 3.6, 95%CI [- 6.90, - 0.36]) and at T1 specifically (- 3.9, 95%CI [- 7.47, - 0.28]). Participants in STEPS who had returned to work to some extent at baseline worked fewer hours at T1 (- 3.7, 95%CI [- 7.16, -0.22]). Finally, participants in STEPS had 0.7-point higher best-ever work ability at T2 (95%CI [0.04, 1.31]). All other outcomes did not differ meaningfully between groups.

conclusionIn its current form, STEPS does not improve sustained employability in cancer survivors. While STEPS may improve self-perceived work ability, this is unlikely to improve objective work-related outcomes. Work participation support should extend beyond initial return to work and engage employees and employers to address workplace barriers and facilitators.

Indexed as

Randomized controlled trialReturn to workStages of changeSustained employabilityWork participationWork retention

Identifiers

PMID42474939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.