Cancer Survivors’ Social Context in the Return to Work Process: Narrative Accounts of Social Support and Social Comparison Information

Article

Abstract

Purpose Returning to work is a process that is intertwined with the social aspects of one’s life, which can influence the way in which that person manages their return to work and also determines the support available to them. This study aimed to explore cancer patients’ perceptions of the role of their social context in relation to returning to work following treatment. Methods Twenty-three patients who had received a diagnosis of either urological, breast, gynaecological, or bowel cancer participated in semi-structured interviews examining general perceptions of cancer, work values and perceptions of the potential impact of their cancer diagnosis and treatment on work. Interviews were analysed using the iterative process of Framework Analysis. Results Two superordinate themes emerged as influential in the return to work process: Social support as a facilitator of return to work (e.g. co-workers’ support and support outside of the workplace) and Social comparison as an appraisal of readiness to return to work (e.g. comparisons with other cancer patients, colleagues, and employees in other organisations or professions). Conclusions Two functions of the social context of returning to work after cancer were apparent in the participants’ narrative: the importance of social support as a facilitator of returning to work and the utilisation of social comparison information in order to appraise one’s readiness to return to work. The role of social context in returning to work has largely been absent from the research literature to date. The findings of this study suggest that social support and social comparison mechanisms may have a significant impact on an individual’s successful return to the workplace.

Keywords

Social context Cancer Return to work Social support Social comparison 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0613-31088). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants have been approved by the appropriate research ethics committee (institutional and national) and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Amir Z, Moran T, Walsh L, Iddenden R, Luker K. Return to paid work after cancer: a British experience. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1(2):129–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, de Graaf JH, Balak F, Groothoff JW. Sickness absence and return to work rates in women with breast cancer. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2009;82:543–546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mehnert A, de Boer A, Feuerstein M. Employment challenges for cancer survivors. Cancer 2013;119(Suppl 11):2151–2159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taskila T, Lindbohm. ML Factos affecting cancer survivors’ employment and work ability. Acta Oncol. 2007;46(4):446–451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):415–437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chow SL, Ting AS, Tin TS. Development of conceptual framework to understand factors with return to work among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Iran J Public Health 2014;43(4):391–405.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mbengi RK, Mortelmans K, Arbyn M, van Oyen H, Bouland C, de Brouwer C. Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer survivors: time for action-rapid review and expert consulation. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rydström I, Englund CD, Dellve L, Ahlstorm L. Importance of social capital at the workplace for return to work among women with a history of long-term sick leave: a cohort study. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(1):38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Islam T, Dahlui M, Majid HA, Nahar AM, Mohd Taib NA, Su TT. Factors associated with return to work of breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014;14(Suppl 3):S8. doi: 10.1186/s12912-017-0234-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tamminga SJ, de Boer AGEM, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Breast cancer survivors’ views of factors that influence the return-to-work process-a qualitative study. Scand J Work Environ Health 2012;38(2):144–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehnert A, Koch U. Predictors of employment among cancer survivors after medical rehabilitation: a prospective study. Scand J Work Environ Health 2013;39(1):76–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nachreiner NM, Dagher RK, McGovern PM, Baker BA, Alexander BH, Gerberich SG. Successful return to work for cancer survivors. AAOHN J. 2007;55(7):290–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tiedtke C, de Casterle BD, Donceel P, de Rijk A. Workplace support after breast cancer treatment: recognition of vulnerability. Disabil Regabil. 2015;37(19):1770–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stergiou -K PC, Holness DL, Kirsh B, van Eerd D, Duncan A, Jones J. Am I ready to return to work? Assisting cancer survivors to determine work readiness. J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10(4):699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amir Z, Brocky J. Cancer survivorship and employment: epidemiology. Occup Med. 2009;59(6):373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wells M, Williams B, Firnigi 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 qualitative studies. Psycho-Oncology 2013;22(6):1208–1219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taskila T, Lindbohm ML, Martikainen R, Lehto US, Hakkinen J, Hietanen JP. Cancer survivors received and needed social support from their work place and the occupational health services. Support Care Cancer 2006;14(5):427–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52(2):145–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fong AJ, Scarapicchia TM, McDonough MHM, Wrosch C, Sabiston CM. Changes in social support predict emotional well-being in breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 2017;26(5):664–671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woods PL, Schumacher L, Sadhra SS, Sutton AJ, Zarkar A, Rolf P, Grunfeld EA. A guided workbook intervention (WorkPlan) to support work-related goals among cancer survivors: protocol of a feasibility randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(2):e75. doi: 10.2196/resprot.5300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1993. pp. 173–194.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glaser BG. The constant comparison method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems 1965;12(4):436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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):190–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stergiou -KM, Grigorovich A, Tseung V, Milosevic E, Hebert D, Phan S, Jones J. Qualitative meta-synthesis of survivors’ work experiences and the development of strategies to facilitate return to work. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(4):657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grunfeld EA, Drudge-Coates L, Rixon L, Eaton E, Cooper AF. “The only way I know how to live is to work”: a qualitative study of work following treatment for prostate cancer. Health Psychol. 2013;32(1):75–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Love B, Thompson CM, Knapp J. The need to be superman: the psychosocial support challenges of young men affected by cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41(1):21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rising CJ, Bol N, Burke-Garcia A, Wright K. The ties that bind: the relationship between prostate cancer (PCa) Stigma, Social Support Network Preference, life stage and health outcomes. PscyhoOncology 2016;25(2):52–53.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    mcCaughan E, Parahoo K, Prue G. Comparing cancer experiences among people with colorectal cancer: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(12):2686–2695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sparkes AC, Víctor PS, Brett S. Social comparison processes, narrative mapping and their shaping of the cancer experience: a case study of an elite athlete. Health (London) 2012;16(5):467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brown D, Ferris DJ, Heller D, Keeping LM. Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organ Beh Hum Decis Process. 2007;102(1):59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor CLC, Kulik J, Badr H, Smith M, Bassen-Engquist K, Penedo F, Gritz ER. A social comparison theory analysis of group composition and efficacy of cancer support group programs. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(2):262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aspinwall LG, Taylor SE. Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;64(5):708–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor S, Lobel M. Social comparison activity under threat: downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychol Rev. 1989;96(4):569–575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stanton A, Danoff-Burg S, Cameron C, Snider PR, Kirk SB. Social comparison and adjustment to breast cancer: an experimental examination of upward affiliation and downward evaluation. Health Psychol. 1999;18(2):151–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brakel T. The effects of social comparison information on cancer survivors’ quality of life: a field-experimental intervention approach. Doctor of Philosophy. University of Groningen; 2014. http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/12800071/Complete_dissertation.pdf.
  36. 36.
    Heckhausen J. Developmental regulation in adulthood. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Belizzi KM, Blank TO, Oakes CE. Social comparison processes in autobiographies of adult cancer survivors. J Health Psychol. 2006;11(5):777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meltzer LJ, Rourke MT. Oncology summer camp: benefits of social comparison. Child Health Care 2005;34(4):305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cooper AF, Hankins M, Rixon L, Eaton E, Grunfeld EA. Distinct work-related, clinical and psychological factors predict return to work following treatment in four different cancer types. PsychoOncology 2013;22(3):659–668.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morrison T, Thomas R. Comparing men and women’s experience following work of work after cancer: a photovoice study. Support Care Cancer 2015;23(10):3015–3023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tiedtke C, de Rijk A, Donceel P, Christiaens MR, de Casterlé BD. Survived but feeling vulnerable and insecure: a qualitative study of the mental preparation for RTW after breast cancer treatment. BMC Public Health 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-538.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grunfeld EA, Cooper AF. A longitudinal qualitative study of the experience of working following treatment for gynaecological cancer. Psychooncology 2012;21(1):82–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Spelten ER, Verbeek JH, Uitterhoeve AL, Ansink AC, van der Lelie J, de Reijke TM, Kammeijer M, de Haes JC, Sprangers MA. Cancer, fatigue and the return of patients to work-a prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer 2003;39(11):1562–2156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kennedy F, Haslam C, Munir F, Pryce J. Returning to work following cancer: a qualitative exploratory study into the experience of returning to work following cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2007;16(1):17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steiner JF, Nowels CT, Main DS. Returning to work after cancer: quantitative studies and prototypical narratives. Psychooncology 2010;19(2):115–124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. Sickness absence and full return to work after cancer: 2-year follow-up of register data for different cancer sites. Psychooncology 2011;20(9), 1001–1006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Park JH, Park EC, Park JH, Kim SG, Lee SY. Job loss and re-employment of cancer patients in Korean employees: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1302–1309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Burke NJ, Joseph G, Pasick RJ, Barker J. Theorizing social context: rethinking behavioral theory. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36(5 Suppl):55S–70S. doi: 10.1177/1090198109335338.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B. Social support interventions. Do they work?. Clin Psychol Rev. 2002;22(3), 381–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tjulin Å, MacEachen E, Stiwne EE, Ekberg K. The social interaction of return-to-work explored from co-workers experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(21–22):1979–1989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bauckham D. A systematic review of the factors affecting the provision of social support form co-workers during the return-to-work process. Brighton J Res Health Sci. 2016;1(2):2. http://blogs.brighton.ac.uk/bjrhs/2016/02/09/a-systematic-review-of-the-factors-affecting-the-provision-of-social-support-from-co-workers-during-the-return-to-work-process/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health and Life SciencesCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  2. 2.Department of Psychological SciencesBirkbeck, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations