Identifying Expectations of Delayed Return to Work in Patients with Prostate Cancer at the Beginning of a Cancer Rehabilitation Program
Purpose To investigate factors associated with expectations of delayed return to work (RTW) in patients with prostate cancer recently admitted to a cancer rehabilitation program. Methods In this multicenter study, data about expected time until RTW and potential correlates (personal, medical, psychosocial and work-related factors) were obtained from 822 employed cancer rehabilitation participants at the beginning of the program. Participants expecting early RTW (≤ 3 months) and delayed RTW (> 3 months) were compared. Hierarchical multivariate logistic regression was applied to study which factors are associated with expecting delayed RTW. Results In total, 171 cancer rehabilitation participants (21%) expected delayed RTW. Group comparison showed education, type of occupation, income, number of comorbid conditions, tumor stage according to the staging system of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), anxiety and depression, quality-of-life functioning scales, urinary and treatment-related symptoms, duration of sick leave, subjective work ability, perceived ability to return to the former job, intention to apply for a disability pension, effort-reward-imbalance and occupational stress to be associated in bivariate analysis with participants’ expectations. Multivariate analysis revealed UICC tumor stage III (compared to stages I/II, OR 2.36), lower subjective work ability (OR 0.82), perceived inability to return to the former job (OR 1.88) and intention to apply for a disability pension (OR 1.94) to increase the likelihood of expecting delayed RTW. Conclusions Negative or non-beneficial RTW expectations, which are related to self-perception and behavioral intention, seem to be key factors for expecting delayed RTW. Interventions to early identify and adjust such expectations might empower cancer rehabilitation participants to develop appropriate expectations for work recovery.
KeywordsCancer Prostate cancer Return to work Rehabilitation Expectation Regression analysis
We thank all patients for their effort in participating in the present study. General non-financial advisory support has been provided by the COST Action IS1211 CANWON (C. Bergelt).
This work was funded by the North Rhine-Westfalia Association for the Fight against Cancer, Germany (no assigned reference number). The funding source was not involved in conduct of the research (collection, analysis and interpretation of the data) and preparation of the article (writing the report, decision to submit the manuscript for publication). The corresponding author had full access to all the data and had responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Authors Ullrich, Rath, Otto, Kerschgens, Raida, Hagen-Aukamp and Bergelt declare that they have no competing interest.
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 (5).
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the General Medical Council of Hamburg (PV3547) as well as the department of data security of the German Pension Insurance Agency, Berlin.
- 2.Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten im Robert Koch-Institut: Male estimated incidence of prostate cancer in total and by age for 2014 (Online Analysis). https://www.krebsdaten.de/abfrage. Accessed 15 July 2019.
- 3.OECD: Working age population (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/d339918b-en. Accessed 15 July 2019.
- 4.Cancer Research UK: Prostate cancer (C61), average number of new cases per year, males, UK, 2014-2016. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence. Accessed 15 July 2019.
- 5.Danckert B, Ferlay J, Engholm G, Hansen HL, Johannesen TB, Khan S, Køtlum JE, Ólafsdóttir E, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A, Storm HH. NORDCAN: Cancer incidence, mortality, prevalence and survival in the Nordic Countries, version 8.2 (26.03.2019). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. http://www.ancr.nu. Accessed 15 July 2019.
- 20.Duijts SFA, van der Beek A, Bleiker EMA, Smith K, Wardle J. Cancer and heart attack survivors’ expectations of employment status: results from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):640. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4659-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Choi BC, Pak AW. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Investig Med. 2006;29(6):351–364.Google Scholar
- 31.Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949.Google Scholar
- 33.Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JCJM, Kaasa S, Klee M, Osboa D, Razavi D, Rofe PB, Schraub S, Sneeuw K, Sullivan M, Takeda F. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–376.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fosså SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S, Kynaston H, Gontero P, Thalmann G, Akdas A, D’Haese S, Aaronson NK. An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2418–2424.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.Google Scholar
- 40.Gragnano A, Negrini A, Miglioretti M, Corbière M. Common psychosocial factors predicting return to work after common mental disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers: a review of reviews supporting a cross-disease approach. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(2):215–231.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 46.Tamminga SJ, Verbeek JHAM, Bos MMEM, Fons G, Kitzen JJEM, Plaisier PW, Frings-Dresen MHW, de Boer AGEM. Effectiveness of a hospital-based work support intervention for female cancer patients—a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e63271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063271.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar