Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 89–96 | Cite as

Perceptions of Breast Cancer Survivors on the Supporting Practices of Their Supervisors in the Return-to-Work Process: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

  • Maryse CaronEmail author
  • Marie-José Durand
  • Dominique Tremblay


Purpose Supervisors are known to be key actors in ensuring the success of absent employees in their return-to-work process. However, to date, little is known about the perceptions of breast cancer survivors on the practices put in place by their supervisors to support them during this process. The objective of this study was to describe the perceptions of breast cancer survivors on the practices put in place by their supervisors to support them during their return-to-work process. Method A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with breast cancer survivors (n = 10) who had returned to work after treatment and were still at work more than 18 months later. Each interview was audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim for qualitative thematic content analysis using a semi-open codification framework. Results Participants identified three main practices put in place by their supervisors to support them and which they perceived as particularly helpful during the return-to-work process: (1) maintaining communication during their period of absence; (2) working with them to structure their return-to-work process before their actual return; and (3) allowing them flexibility in their schedule for a certain period, particularly at the beginning of the return-to-work process. Breast cancer survivors also identified an omission in the practice of employers: lack of follow-up over time. Conclusion Knowledge about the practices perceived as helpful by breast cancer survivors during their return-to-work process lays the groundwork for the eventual development of services to help breast cancer survivors in their return to work.


Breast neoplasms Survivors Return to work Workplace 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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 (5).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jefford M, Rowland J, Grunfeld E, Richards M, Maher J, Glaser A. Implementing improved post-treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(1):14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hebdon M, Foli K, McComb S. Survivor in the cancer context: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(8):1774–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Cancer Society. Life after cancer. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yarker J, Munir F, Bains M, Kalawsky K, Haslam C. The role of communication and support in return to work following cancer-related absence. Psychooncology. 2010;19(10):1078–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Short PF, Vasey JJ, Tunceli K. Employment pathways in a large cohort of adult cancer survivors. Cancer. 2005;103(6):1292–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Ekberg K. Exploring workplace actors experiences of the Social Organization of return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):311–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehnert A. Employment and work-related issues in cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hemat. 2011;77(2):109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spelten ER, Sprangers M, Verbeek J. Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: a literature review. Psychooncology. 2002;11(2):124–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feuerstein M, Todd BL, Moskowitz MC, Bruns GL, Stoler MR, Nassif T, Yu X. Work in cancer survivors: a model for practice and research. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4(4):415–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, MacGillivray S. Supporting work-related goals rather than return to work after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitatives studies. Psychooncology. 2013;22(6):1208–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Durand MJ, Corbière M, Coutu MF, Reinharz D, Albert V. A review of best work-absence management and return-to-work practices for workers with musculoskeletal or common mental disorders. Work. 2014;48(4):579–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pomaki G, Franche R, Khushrushahi N, Murray E, Lampinen T, Mah P. Best practices for return-to-work/stay-at-work interventions for workers with mental health conditions. Vancouver: Occupational Health and Safety Agency of Healthcare in BC; 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boot CRL, Hogg-Johnson S, Bültmann U, Amick BC III, van der Beek AJ. Difference in predictors for return to work following musculoskeletal injury between workers with and without somatic comorbidities. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(8):871–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taskila T, Lindbohm ML. Factors affecting cancer survivors’ employment and work ability. Acta Oncol. 2007;43(5):914–20.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amir Z, Neary D, Luker K. Cancer survivors’ views of work 3 years post diagnosis: a UK perspective. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(3):190–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunbrack J. Breast cancer: economic impact and labour force re-entry. Ottawa: Breast Cancer Network; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    NICE. Managing long term sickness absence and incapacity of work. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aas RW, Ellingsen K, Lindoe P, Möller A. Leadership qualities in the return to work process: a content analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):335–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):607–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nilsson MI, Petersson LM, Wennman-Larsen A, Olsson M, Vaez M, Alexanderson K. Adjustment and social support at work early after breast cancer surgery and its associations with sickness absence. Psychooncology. 2013;22(12):2755–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McKay G, Knott V, Delfabbro P. Return to work and cancer: the Australian experience. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoefsmit N, Houkes I Nijhuis F. Environmental and personal factors that support early return-to-work: a qualitative study using the ICF as a framework. Work. 2014;48(2):203–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pryce J, Munir F, Haslam C. Cancer survivorship and work: symptoms, supervisor response, co-worker disclosure and work adustment. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):83–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nachreiner NM, Dagher RK, McGovern PM, Baker BA, Alexander BH, Gerberich SG. Successful return to work for cancer survivors. AAOHN J. 2007;55(7):290–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laperrière A. Qualitative methods' scientificity criteria. In: Poupart J, Deslauriers JP, Groulx LH, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires AP, editors. Qualitative research: epistemological and methodological issues (french). Montréal: Gaëtan Morin éditeur; 1997. p. 365–89.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tamminga SJ, de Boer AGEM, Bos MMEM, Fons G, Kitzen JJEM, Plaisier PW, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen MHW. A hospital-based work support intervention to enhance the return to work of cancer patients: a process evaluation. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(4):565–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.School of RehabilitationUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  3. 3.School of Nursing SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  4. 4.Research Center – Hôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations