10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing a Return to Work Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors with the Intervention Mapping Protocol: Challenges and Opportunities of the Needs Assessment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Return to work (RTW) is an important step for breast cancer survivors (BCSs). However, they face many barriers that affect particularly women with low socioeconomic status (SES). Health care, workplace, and insurance actors lack knowledge and collaborate poorly. No intervention to date has proven effective to reduce social disparities in employment after breast cancer. The intervention mapping (IM) protocol is being used in France to develop, implement, and evaluate an intervention to facilitate and sustain RTW after breast cancer [ FAciliter et Soutenir le retour au TRAvail après un Cancer du Sein (FASTRACS) project]. The research question of this study was to elicit the needs for RTW after breast cancer from various stakeholders’ point of view. The aim of this study was to describe the process and the preliminary results of the needs assessment of the FASTRACS project. Different methods were followed to (a) establish and work with a planning group and (b) conduct a needs assessment to create a logic model of the problem. A planning group was organized to gather the stakeholders with the research team. A review of the literature and indicators was conducted to identify the magnitude of the problem and the factors influencing RTW. A qualitative inquiry was conducted with 12 focus groups and 48 individual semi-structured interviews to explore the needs and experience of the stakeholders. The results of these tasks were the proposition of a charter of partnership to structure the participative process, a review of the scientific evidence and indicators, and the description by the stakeholders of their needs and experience. Many stakeholders disagreed with the concept of “early intervention.” They advocated for a better support of BCSs during their RTW, emphasized as a process. Anticipation, intersectoral collaboration, and workplace accommodation were mentioned to fit the needs of the BCS and their environment. A logic model of the problem was elaborated from these data. The ability of the model to consider specific characteristics of women with low SES is discussed, with a view to developing the FASTRACS intervention through the next steps of the IM protocol.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer survivors and unemployment: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

          Nearly half of adult cancer survivors are younger than 65 years, but the association of cancer survivorship with employment status is unknown. To assess the association of cancer survivorship with unemployment compared with healthy controls. A systematic search of studies published between 1966 and June 2008 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and OSH-ROM databases. Eligible studies included adult cancer survivors and a control group, and employment as an outcome. Pooled relative risks were calculated over all studies and according to cancer type. A Bayesian meta-regression analysis was performed to assess associations of unemployment with cancer type, country of origin, average age at diagnosis, and background unemployment rate. Twenty-six articles describing 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The analyses included 20,366 cancer survivors and 157,603 healthy control participants. Studies included 16 from the United States, 15 from Europe, and 5 from other countries. Overall, cancer survivors were more likely to be unemployed than healthy control participants (33.8% vs 15.2%; pooled relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.55). Unemployment was higher in breast cancer survivors compared with control participants (35.6% vs 31.7%; pooled RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.49), as well as in survivors of gastrointestinal cancers (48.8% vs 33.4%; pooled RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.05), and cancers of the female reproductive organs (49.1% vs 38.3%; pooled RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.40). Unemployment rates were not higher for survivors of blood cancers compared with controls (30.6% vs 23.7%; pooled RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09), prostate cancers (39.4% vs 27.1%; pooled RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.00-1.25), or testicular cancer (18.5% vs 18.1%; pooled RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.20). For survivors in the United States, the unemployment risk was 1.5 times higher compared with survivors in Europe (meta-RR, 1.48; 95% credibility interval, 1.15-1.95). After adjustment for diagnosis, age, and background unemployment rate, this risk disappeared (meta-RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.83). Cancer survivorship is associated with unemployment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Factors associated with return to work of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review

            Background The breast cancer survival rate is the highest among all types of cancers, and survivors returning to work after completing treatment is extremely important in regards to economy and rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review study is to identify the prevalence of breast cancer survivors who return to work (RTW) and the factors associated to RTW. Methods A computer based literature search was carried out. "PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Science Direct" databases were searched systematically. Our search strategy identified a total of 12,116 papers of which 26 studies met the inclusion criteria and quality assessment. These were original papers published between January 2003 and January 2013. Results The trends in RTW differ among countries for the breast cancer survivors. The time to RTW after successful cancer treatment also varies among the countries and by ethnicity. The prevalence of the RTW varies from 43% to 93% within one year of diagnosis. The prevalence of the RTW for the Netherland is the lowest in the world (43%). The United States survivors showed the highest RTW (93%) within 12 months of the diagnosis. Numerous barriers and facilitators were identified as factors that affect RTW. For instance, socio-demographic factors such as education and ethnicity; treatment oriented factors such as chemotherapy; work related factors such as heavy physical work; disease related factors such as poor health condition and fatigue; and psychological factors such as depression and emotional distress, act as barriers of RTW. In contrast, social, family, employer support, and financial independency emerge as key facilitators in enabling breast cancer survivors to return and continue work. Conclusion Minimising these identified barriers and strengthening these facilitators could further improve the work condition and increase the percentage of RTW among the breast cancer survivors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence.

              The process of returning disabled workers to work presents numerous challenges. In spite of the growing evidence regarding work disability prevention, little uptake of this evidence has been observed. One reason for limited dissemination of evidence is the complexity of the problem, as it is subject to multiple legal, administrative, social, political, and cultural challenges. A literature review and collection of experts' opinion is presented, on the current evidence for work disability prevention, and barriers to evidence implementation. Recommendations are presented for enhancing implementation of research results. The current evidence regarding work disability prevention shows that some clinical interventions (advice to return to modified work and graded activity programs) and some non-clinical interventions (at a service and policy/community level but not at a practice level) are effective in reducing work absenteeism. Implementation of evidence in work disability is a major challenge because intervention recommendations are often imprecise and not yet practical for immediate use, many barriers exist, and many stakeholders are involved. Future studies should involve all relevant stakeholders and aim at developing new strategies that are effective, efficient, and have a potential for successful implementation. These studies should be based upon a clearer conceptualization of the broader context and inter-relationships that determine return to work outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/403698
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/474013
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/494652
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/485304
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/514284
                URI : http://frontiersin.org/people/u/525998
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                23 February 2018
                2018
                : 6
                : 35
                Affiliations
                [1] 1UMRESTTE UMR T_9405, Unité mixte de recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [2] 2Service de médecine et santé au travail, Hospices civils de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [3] 3Collège universitaire de médecine générale, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [4] 4HESPER, Health Services and Performance Research, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [5] 5Pôle IMER, Hospices civils de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [6] 6Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive LBBE – UMR 5558, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 , Lyon, France
                [7] 7Service d’oncologie médicale. Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Hospices civils de Lyon , Pierre-Bénite, France
                [8] 8GRePS – EA 4163 (Groupe de Recherche en Psychologie Sociale), Université Lumière Lyon 2, Université de Lyon , Lyon, France
                [9] 9Centre Léon Bérard, Département Cancer et Environnement , Lyon, France
                [10] 10Faculté Lyon Est, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon , Lyon, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Gerjo Kok, Maastricht University, Netherlands

                Reviewed by: Frederieke Schaafsma, VU University Medical Center, Netherlands; Angelique De Rijk, Maastricht University, Netherlands (Astrid Bosma contributed to the review of Frederieke Schaafsma)

                *Correspondence: Jean-Baptiste Fassier, jean-baptiste.fassier@ 123456univ-lyon1.fr

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2018.00035
                5829033
                29527521
                9138a2ed-7f6b-4123-ba91-7449ca6a90b1
                Copyright © 2018 Fassier, Lamort-Bouché, Broc, Guittard, Péron, Rouat, Carretier, Fervers, Letrilliart and Sarnin.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 October 2017
                : 31 January 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 79, Pages: 13, Words: 11137
                Funding
                Funded by: Institut National Du Cancer 10.13039/501100006364
                Award ID: no 2016-003
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                intervention mapping,breast cancer,needs assessment,return to work,work rehabilitation,program development,participative research,social health disparities

                Comments

                Comment on this article