Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Predicting Healthcare Professionals’ Assumed Role Responsibility

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Returning to work is highly beneficial for many cancer survivors. While research has documented the significance of healthcare professionals in the process of return to work (RTW), very little is known about those professionals’ views regarding their responsibility for RTW. The purpose of the present study was to identify factors that predict the extent to which healthcare professionals view involvement in the RTW of cancer survivors as part of their role. Methods In a cross-sectional design, questionnaires measuring attitudes regarding personal role responsibility for RTW, team role responsibility for RTW and benefits of RTW were administered to 157 healthcare professionals who care for working-age cancer survivors: oncologists, occupational physicians, family physicians, oncology nurses, oncology social workers, and psychologists. Results Both belief in the benefits of RTW, and the view that RTW is the team responsibility of healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors, are positively related to viewing RTW as part of the responsibilities of one’s personal professional role. Moderation analysis indicated that perception of team responsibility for RTW moderates the effect of the perceived benefits of RTW, such that the perception of benefits is significantly associated with personal role responsibility only when there is a low level of perceived team responsibility. Conclusions Issues related to RTW should be routinely included in basic and advanced training of healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of working-age cancer survivors, to increase awareness of this aspect of cancer survivors’ well-being and position RTW as part of healthcare professionals’ role responsibilities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(12):2755–2762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Engel J, Kerr J, Schlesinger-Raab A, Eckel R, Sauer H, Hölzel D. Predictors of quality of life of breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2003;42(7):710–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leensen MCJ, Groeneveld IF, Rejda T, et al. Feasibility of a multidisciplinary intervention to help cancer patients return to work. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;27(2):e12690. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiedtke C, Donceel P, Knops L, Désiron H, De Casterlé BD, de Rijk A. Supporting return-to-work in the face of legislation: stakeholders’ experiences with return-to-work after breast cancer in Belgium. J Occupat Rehabil. 2012;22(2):241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bondesson T, Petersson LM, Wennman-Larsen A, Alexanderson K, Kjeldgård L, Nilsson MI. A study to examine the influence of health professionals’ advice and support on work capacity and sick leave after breast cancer surgery. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(10):4141–4148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nilsson M, Olsson M, Wennman-Larsen A, Petersson LM, Alexanderson K. Return to work after breast cancer: women’s experiences of encounters with different stakeholders. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(3):267–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yagil D, Eshed-Lavi N, Carel R, Cohen M. Healthcare professionals’ perspective on return to work in cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27(4):1206–1212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen M, Gagin R, Cinamon T, Stein T, Moscovitz M, Kuten A. Translating ‘distress’ and screening for emotional distress in multicultural cancer patients in Israel. Qual Life Res. 2011;21(4):555–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It’s not over when it’s over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors—a systematic review. Int J Psychiatr Med. 2010;40(2):163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lebel S, Castonguay M, Mackness G, Irish J, Bezjak A, Devins GM. The psychosocial impact of stigma in people with head and neck or lung cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(1):140–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrison T, Thomas R, Guitard P. Physicians’ perspectives on cancer survivors’ work integration issues. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(1):36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Petersen KS, Momsen AH, Stapelfeldt CM, Olsen PR, Nielsen CV. Return-to-work intervention during cancer treatment—the providers’ experience. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;27(2):e12793. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagner RW, Pritzker S. Cancer survivorship care-planning: practice, research, and policy implications for social work. Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(3):181–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Magnavita N. Work-related symptoms in indoor environments: a puzzling problem for the occupational physician. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015;88(2):185–196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fidjeland HL, Brekke M, Vistad I. General practitioners’ attitudes toward follow-up after cancer treatment: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. Scand J Primary Health Care. 2015;33(4):223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vincent NA. A structured taxonomy of responsibility concepts. In: Vincent N, Van de Poel I, Van den Hoven J, editors. Moral responsibility: beyond freewill and determinism. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. pp. 15–35.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Chreim S, Williams BB, Hinings CB. Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role identity. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(6):1515–1539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wada K, Ohtsu M, Aizawa Y, Tanaka H, Tagaya N, Takahashi M. Awareness and behavior of oncologists and support measures in medical institutions related to ongoing employment of cancer patients in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(4):295–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bains M, Yarker J, Amir Z, Wynn P, Munir F. Helping cancer survivors return to work: what providers tell us about the challenges in assisting cancer patients with work questions. J Occupat Rehabil. 2012;22(1):71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendick N, Young B, Holcombe C, et al. The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(12):1904–1911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wymer W, Alves MB. A review of scale development practices in nonprofit management and marketing. J Econ Sociol. 2012;5(2):143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tamminga SJ, De Boer AG, Verbeek JH, Frings-Dresen MH. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ashforth B. Role transitions in organizational life: an identity-based perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hardy C, Lawrence TB, Grant D. Discourse and collaboration: the role of conversations and collective identity. Acad Manag Rev. 2005;30(1):58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Managing diversity by creating team identity. J Econ Behav Org. 2005;58(3):371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang H, Law K, Hackett R, Wang D, Chen ZX. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad Manag J. 2005;48(3):420–432.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Beyer F, Sidarus N, Bonicalzi S, Haggard P. Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):138–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF, Anastasio PA, Bachman BA, Rust MC. The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 1993;4(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Murphy KM, Nguyen V, Shin K, Sebastian-Deutsch A, Frieden L. Health care professionals and the employment-related needs of cancer survivors. J Occupat Rehabil. 2017;27(2):296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Asscher ECA, Bolt I, Schermer M. Wish-fulfilling medicine in practice: a qualitative study of physician arguments. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(6):327–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yagil D, Medler-Liraz H. Clinical expert or service provider? Physicians’ identity work in the context of counterprofessional patient requests. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(9):1199–1211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stergiou-Kita M, Pritlove C, 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 Survivor. 2016;10(4):699–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0377-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Verbeek JHAM, Spelten E, Kammeijer M, Sprangers M. Return to work of cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study into the quality of rehabilitation by occupational physicians. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(5):352–357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Henry KB, Arrow H, Carini B. A tripartite model of group identification. Small Group Res. 1999;30(5):558–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mitchell RJ, Parker V, Giles M. When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Hum Relat. 2011;64(10):1321–1343.‏

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research (No. 45839).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Dana Yagil, Nofar Eshed-Lavi, Rafi Carel & Miri Cohen

Authors
  1. Dana Yagil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nofar Eshed-Lavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafi Carel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miri Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Yagil.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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). Participates signed an informed consent electronically, only those who consented to participate were able to access a designated website.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yagil, D., Eshed-Lavi, N., Carel, R. et al. Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Predicting Healthcare Professionals’ Assumed Role Responsibility. J Occup Rehabil 29, 443–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9807-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9807-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation