Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing men’s and women’s experiences of work after cancer: a photovoice study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Work is an important quality of life indicator for many cancer survivors. There is, however, a lack of appropriate support to help survivors with work integration. As a result, many survivors are forced to independently navigate their return to work, experiencing unnecessary pitfalls in the process. As a preliminary step toward addressing this current gap in survivorship support, we explored the work integration experiences of 20 cancer survivors, 10 women and 10 men.

Methods

Photovoice methods were combined with two individual interviews per participant. Participant-produced photographs and interview transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes.

Results

Both commonalities and gender-differentiated motivations underlying work integration emerged. Female and male participants both demonstrated and discussed differentiated manners of coping. Men expressed a propensity for productivity and active engagements over talking used predominantly by women.

Conclusion

Appreciation of men’s proclivity for productivity and activity suggests that a gender-tailored approach to rehabilitation may enhance male survivors’ participation and the utility of rehabilitation efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bradley CJ, Bednarek HL (2002) Employment patterns of long-term cancer survivors. Psychooncology 11(3):188–198. doi:10.1002/pon.544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Spelten ER, Sprangers MAG, Verbeek JHAM (2002) Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: a literature review. Psychooncology 11(2):124–131. doi:10.1002/pon.585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amir Z, Moran T, Walsh L, Iddenden R, Luker K (2007) Return to paid work after cancer: a British experience. J Cancer Survivorship 1(2):129–136. doi:10.1007/s11764-007-0021-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mehnert A (2011) Employment and work-related issues in cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 77:109–130. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neary D (2011) Epidemiology. In: Feuerstein M (ed) Work and cancer survivors. Springer, New York, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  6. Verbeek J, Spelten E, Kammeijer M, Sprangers M (2003) Return to work of cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study into the quality of rehabilitation by occupational physicians. Occup Environ Med 60(5):352–357. doi:10.1136/oem.60.5.352

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan F, Strauser D, Cardoso ES, Xi ZL, Chan JYC, Feuerstein M (2008) State vocational services and employment in cancer survivors. J Cancer Survivorship 2(3):169–178. doi:10.1007/s11764-008-0057-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Poirier P (2005) Policy implications of the relationship of sick leave benefits, individual characteristics, and fatigue to employment during radiation therapy for cancer. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 6(4):305–318. doi:10.1177/1527154405283411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spelten ER, Verbeek JH, Uitterhoeve AL, Ansink AC, van der Lelie J, de Reijke TM, Kammeijer M, de Haed JCJM, Sprangers MAG (2003) Cancer, fatigue and the return of patients to work: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer 39(11):1562–1567. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00364-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahn E, Cho J, Shin DW, Park BW, Ahn SH, Noh D-Y, Nam SJ, Lee ES, Yun YH (2009) Impact of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on work-related life and factors affecting them. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(3):609–616. doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0209-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taskila T, Lindbohm ML, Martikainen R, Lehto US, Hakanen J, Hietanen P (2006) Cancer survivors’ received and needed social support from their work place and the occupational health services. Support Cancer Care 14:427–435. doi:10.1007/s00520-005-0005-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (2012) Programs and resources to facilitate return to work for people with cancer or other chronic diseases: environmental scan. http://www.cancerview.ca/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rtw_environmental_scan.pdf Accessed 25 July 2014

  13. Morrison T, Thomas RL (2014) Survivors’ experiences of return to work following cancer: a photovoice study. Can J Occup Ther 81:163–172. doi:10.1177/0008417414534398

  14. Nitkin P, Parkinson M, Schultz IZ (2011) Cancer and work: a Canadian perspective. Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology. www.capo.com. Accessed 28 July 2014

  15. Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, MacGillivray S (2013) Supporting ‘work-related goals’ rather than ‘return to work’ after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies. Psychooncology 22:1208–1219. doi:10.1002/pon.3148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang CC (1999) Photovoice: a participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. J Womens Health 8:185–192. doi:10.1089/jwh.1999.8.185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang C, Burris M, Ping XY (1996) Chinese village women as visual anthropologists: a participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Soc Sci Med 42:1391–1400. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00287-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pink S (2007) Doing visual ethnography, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mueller C (2006) Creating a joint partnership: including Qallunaat teacher voices within Nanavik education policy. Int J Incl Educ 10:429–447. doi:10.1080/13603110600578281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hergenrather KC, Rhodes SD, Cowan CA, Bardhoshi G, Pula S (2009) Photovoice as community-based participatory research: a qualitative review. Am J of Health Behav 33(6):686–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shenton AK (2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf 22:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  22. Affleck M, Glass KC, Macdonald ME (2012) The limitations of language: male participants, stoicism, and the qualitative research interview. Am J Mens Health 7(2):155–162. doi:10.1177/1557988312464038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luker K, Campbell M, Amir Z, Davies L (2013) A UK survey of the impact of cancer on employment. Occup Med 63:494–500. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqt104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Handberg C, Nielsen CV, Lomborg K (2014) Men’s reflections on participating in cancer rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative studies 2000–2013. Eur J Cancer Care 23(2):159–172. doi:10.1111/ecc.12131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rasmussen DM, Elverdam B (2008) The meaning of work and working life after cancer: an interview study. Psychooncology 17(12):1232–1238. doi:10.1002/pon.1354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Amir Z, Neary D, Luker K (2008) Cancer survivors’ views of work 3 years post diagnosis: a UK perspective. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12(3):190–197. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2008.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lilliehorn S, Hamberg K, Kero A, Salander P (2013) Meaning of work and the returning process after breast cancer: a longitudinal study of 56 women. Scand J Caring Sci 27:267–274. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01026.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moyhihan C (2002) Men, women, gender, and cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 11(3):166–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wenger LM (2013) ‘Living under assault’: men making sense of cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 22(3):389–399. doi:10.1111/ecc.12042

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Holm LV, Hansen DG, Johansen C, Vedsted P, Larsen PV, Kragstrup J, Søndergaard J (2012) Participation in cancer rehabilitation and unmet needs: a population-based cohort study. Support Care Cancer 20:2913–2924. doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1420-0

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Funding

This research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategic Training in Health Research Postdoctoral Strategic Training Fellowship (Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research-Primary Health Care) as well as the Canada Research Chairs Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road (3071), Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada

    T. L. Morrison & R. L. Thomas

Authors
  1. T. L. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. L. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. L. Morrison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morrison, T.L., Thomas, R.L. Comparing men’s and women’s experiences of work after cancer: a photovoice study. Support Care Cancer 23, 3015–3023 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2670-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2670-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation