Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 12;22(1):1905.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14271-w.

Identification of actions to be taken by managers to facilitate the return to work of cancer survivors: Consensus between managers and cancer survivors

B Porro  1 , S J Tamminga  2   3 , A G E M de Boer  2   3 , A Petit  4 , Y Roquelaure  4 , M A Greidanus  2   3
Affiliations

Identification of actions to be taken by managers to facilitate the return to work of cancer survivors: Consensus between managers and cancer survivors

B Porro et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Managers are considered to be main stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. However, the perspectives of cancer survivors and managers differ on what managerial actions should be taken during the RTW of cancer survivors. This difference might put effective collaboration and successful RTW at risk. Therefore, this study aims to reach consensus among managers and cancer survivors on the managerial actions to be taken during the four different RTW phases of cancer survivors (i.e., Disclosure, Treatment, RTW plan, Actual RTW).

Methods: The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) was implemented with managers and cancer survivors (hereafter referred to as "experts"). An initial list of 24 actions was derived from a previous study. Firstly, for each action, fifteen experts were asked to indicate individually how important this action is per RTW phase (Likert scale from 1 - "Not important at all" to 6 - "Very important"). Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% (i.e., ≥ twelve experts) of the experts rated that action ≥5. Secondly, for each phase of the RTW process, the 15 actions with the highest percentage were discussed with eight experts during the collective consultation, except for the actions that already reached consensus. After discussion, the experts voted whether each action was important ("yes" / "no") and consensus required ≥ 87.5% (i.e., ≥ seven experts) of the experts to consider an action as important.

Results: Twenty-five managerial actions were finally retained for at least one of the RTW phases, e.g., Disclosure: "respect privacy" and "radiate a positive attitude", Treatment: "show appreciation" and "allow sufficient sick leave", RTW Plan: "tailor" and "communicate", and Actual RTW: "support practically" and "balance interest".

Conclusion: Cancer survivors and managers reached consensus on the importance of 25 managerial actions, distributed into each phase of the RTW process. These actions should be considered an interplay of managerial actions by different stakeholders on the part of the employer (e.g., direct supervisor, HR-manager), and should be a responsibility that is shared by these stakeholders. The collective implementation of these actions within the company will help cancer survivors feel fully supported.

Keywords: Cancer survivors; Employer; Expert consensus; Managers; Return to work; TRIAGE method.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
TRIAGE method procedure [22, 23]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shapiro CL. Cancer Survivorship. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2438–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1712502. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Boer A, Frings-Dresen M, Feuerstein M. Improving Return to Work in Cancer Survivors. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice. Boston: Springer US; 2016. pp. 481–503.
    1. Porro B, Bertin M, Bonnaud Antignac A, et al. Assessment of psychosocial dimensions of return to work after a cancer diagnosis: current perspectives and future opportunities. Psychooncology. 2019;28:2429–31. doi: 10.1002/pon.5235. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Duijts SFA, van Egmond MP, Gits M, et al. Cancer survivors’ perspectives and experiences regarding behavioral determinants of return to work and continuation of work. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:2164–72. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219924. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types