Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 764–772 | Cite as

Reintegrating Employees Undergoing Cancer Treatment into the Workplace: A Qualitative Study of Employer and Co-worker Perspectives

  • K. S. PetersenEmail author
  • A. H. Momsen
  • C. M. Stapelfeldt
  • C. V. Nielsen
Article

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how employers and co-workers experience the return to work (RTW) process of employees undergoing cancer treatment. Methods Sixteen semi-structured individual interviews and participant observations at seven workplaces took place, involving seven employers and nine co-workers with different professions. A phenomenological-hermeneutic analytic approach was applied involving coding, identification of themes, and interpretation. Results We identified three employer themes: call for knowledge, Making decisions, and Feeling helpless. Also, three co-worker themes were identified: understanding and sympathy, extra work and burden, and Insecurity about future work tasks. Early initiated RTW, e.g. less work hours and work accommodations, did neither constitute challenges for employers nor co-workers in the beginning of the RTW process. However, when the RTW process was prolonged employers encountered difficulties in finding suitable work tasks, whereas co-workers were burdened by extra work. Conclusions Overall, cancer survivors’ RTW process was welcomed and encouraged at the workplace level. However, employer and co-worker experiences suggested that RTW initiation parallel with cancer treatment raised challenges at the workplace level, when the RTW process was extended beyond the initial RTW plan; increased workload and difficulties in balancing the needs of the cancer survivor and co-workers. Mechanisms that support cancer survivors’ RTW without introducing strain on co-workers should be investigated in future research. Furthermore, support for employers in their RTW management responsibilities needs to be addressed in general and in particular in future RTW interventions.

Keywords

Cancer survivors Return to work Workplace Rehabilitation 

Notes

Author Contributions

The data collection and analysis was independently carried out by KSP. All authors were engaged in designing the study, writing the manuscript, and discussing the findings. Furthermore, the authors and social workers were discussing the preliminary findings; this helped contextualize the findings and gave insight into the possible implications of the RTW intervention on workplace actors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and the funding bodies had no impact on the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. The cancer survivor gave their consent to contact the direct supervisors and co-workers. Informed written consent was obtained from all persons who were interviewed and their anonymity was guaranteed. The study was registered with the Danish Data Protection Agency (Record No. 1.16-02-657-14).

References

  1. 1.
    Carlsen K, Dalton SO, Diderichsen F, Johansen C. Risk for unemployment of cancer survivors: a Danish cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1866–1874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlsen K, Harling H, Pedersen J, Christensen KB, Osler M. The transition between work, sickness absence and pension in a cohort of Danish colorectal cancer survivors. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002259.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002259.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Boer AGEM, Taskila T, Ojajärvi A, van Dijk FJH, Verbeek JHAM. Cancer survivors and unemployment. A meta-analysis and meta-regression. JAMA. 2009;301:753–762.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loisel P, Anema JR. Handbook of work disability. In: Loisel P, Anema JR, editors. Prevention and management. Berlin: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amir Z, Wynn P, Chan F, Strauser D, Whitaker S, Luker K. Return to work after cancer in the UK: attitudes and experiences of line managers. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:435–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greidanus M, Boer A, Rijk A, Tiedtke C, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Frings-Dresen M, et al. Perceived employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors: a systematic review of employers’ and survivors’ perspectives. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27:725–733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amir Z, Popa A, Tamminga S, Yagil D, Munir F, de Boer A. Employer’s management of employees affected by cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:681–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escorpizo R, Finger ME, Glässel A, Gradinger F, Lückenkemper M, Cieza A. A review of functioning in vocational rehabilitation using The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21:134–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. World Report on Disability 2011. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amir Z, Wynn P, Chan F, Strauser D, Whitaker S, Luker K. Return to work after cancer in the UK: attitudes and experiences of line managers. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:435–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tiedtke C, de Rijk A, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Christiaens MR, Donceel P. Experiences and concerns about ‘returning to work’ for women breast cancer survivors: a literature review. Psycho-Oncology. 2010;19:677–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tiedtke CM, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Frings-Dresen MHW, De Boer AGEM, Greidanus MA, Tamminga SJ, Rijk AE. Employers’ experience of employees with cancer: trajectories of complex communication. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11:562–577.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Danish Benefit Act (Serviceloven) In: Retsinformation. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=197036. Accessed 17 July 2018.
  14. 14.
    Petersen KS, Momsen AH, Stapelfeldt CM, Olsen P, Nielsen CV. Return-to-work intervention parallel with cancer treatment—providers’ experiences and challenges. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;27:e12793.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stapelfeldt CM, Labriola M, Jensen AB, Andersen NT, Momsen AH, Nielsen CV. Municipal return to work management in cancer survivors undergoing cancer treatment: a protocol on a controlled intervention study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:720–731.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, et al. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:257–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Stiwne EE, et al. The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1979–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stergio-Kita M, Pritlove C, van Eerd D, Holness LD, Kirsh B, Duncan A, et al. The provision of workplace accomondations following cancer: survivor, provider and employer perspectives. J Cancer Patientship. 2016;10:489–504.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsiu-Fang H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cresswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heerkens Y, Engels J, Kuiper C, Van der Guiden J, Oostendorp R. The use of ICF to describe work related factors influencing the health of employees. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;2(26):1060–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petersen KS, Labriola M, Nielsen CV, Ladekjær E. Work reintegration after long-term sick-leave: work conditions affecting co-workers ability to be supportive. A qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:1872–1883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mehnert A, de Boer A, Feuerstein M. Employment challenges for cancer patients. Cancer. 2013;1:2151–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindbohm ML, Kuosma E, Taskila T, Hietanen P, Carlsen K, Gudbergsson S, et al. Cancer as the cause of changes in work situation (a NOCWO study). Psycho-Oncology. 2011;20:805–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiasuwa RM, Otter R, Mortelmans K, Arbynn M, Van Oyen H, Bouland C, et al. Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer patients: time for action—rapid review and expert consultation. Syst Rev. 2016;24:35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murphy K, Nguyen V, Shin K, Sebastian-Deutch A, Frieden L. Health care professionals and the employment-related needs of cancer patients. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27:296–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amir Z, Brocky J. Cancer patientship and employment: epidemiology. Occup Med (Lond). 2009;59:373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brown RF, Owens M, Bradley C. Employee to employer communication skills: balancing cancer treatment and employment. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22:426–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leijon O, Josephson M, Osterlund N. Sick-listing adherence: a register study of 1.4 million episodes of sickness benefit 2010-2013 in Sweden. BMC Public Health. 2015;14:380–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversitetAalborg EastDenmark
  2. 2.Section of Social Medicine and RehabilitationAarhus University and DEFACTUMAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations