The provision of workplace accommodations following cancer: survivor, provider, and employer perspectives



With improvements in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, the number of persons surviving cancer and staying at or returning to work is increasing. While workplace accommodations optimize workers’ abilities to participate in the workforce, there has been little in-depth investigation of the types of accommodations reported to have been provided to cancer survivors and the processes relevant to ensuring their successful implementation.


We employed an exploratory qualitative method and conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with three groups: (i) cancers survivors (n = 16), (ii) health/vocational service providers (n = 16), and (iii) employer representatives (n = 8) to explore return to work and accommodation processes, successes, and challenges. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data.


Four types of accommodations were recommended: (1) graduated return to work plans and flexible scheduling, (2) modification of work duties and performance expectations, (3) retraining and supports at the workplace, and (4) modification of the physical work environment and/or the provision of adaptive aids/technologies. Processes relevant to ensuring effective accommodations included: (1) developing knowledge about accommodations, (2) employer’s ability to accommodate, (3) negotiating reasonable accommodations, (4) customizing accommodations, and (5) implementing and monitoring accommodation plans. Accommodation challenges included: (1) survivors’ fears requesting accommodations, (2) developing clear and specific accommodations, (3) difficult to accommodate jobs, and (4) workplace challenges, including strained pre-cancer workplace relationships, insufficient/inflexible workplace policies, employer concerns regarding productivity and precedent setting, and limited modified duties.


Accommodations need to be customized and clearly linked to survivors’ specific job demands, work context, and available workplace supports. Survivors need to feel comfortable disclosing the need for accommodations. Ongoing communication and monitoring are required to ensure accommodations are implemented and changes made to the return to work plan as required.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

The provision of appropriate workplace accommodations can enhance survivors’ abilities to stay or return to work.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, undue hardship may be claimed by employers in situations where costs of accommodations may be excessive and when there are identified occupational health and safety risks [37]


  1. 1.

    de Boer AG, Taskila T, Tamminga SJ, et al. Interventions to enhance return to work for cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;Art.No;CD007569.

  2. 2.

    Nitkins P, Parkinson M, Schultz I. Cancer and work: a Canadian perspective. 2011. Available from:

  3. 3.

    Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. 2012–2017 Strategic Plan. Sustaining action toward a shared vision. Available from:

  4. 4.

    Spelten ER, Sprangers MA, Verbeek JH. Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: a literature review. Psychooncology. 2002;11:124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Short PF, Vasey JJ, Tunceli K. Employment pathways in a large cohort of adult cancer survivors. Cancer. 2005;103(6):1292–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    de Boer AG, Verbeek JH, Uitternoeve A, et al. Work ability and return-to-work in cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(8):1342–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kennedy F. Returning to work following cancer: a qualitative exploratory study into the experience of returning to work following cancer. Europ J Cancer Care. 2007;16:17–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rasmussen DM, Elverdam B. The meaning of work and working life after cancer: an interview study. Psychooncology. 2008;17(12):1232–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stergiou-Kita M, Grigorovich A, Tseung V, et al. Qualitative meta-synthesis of survivors’ work experiences and the development of strategies to facilitate return to work. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(4):657–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. Return to work after cancer diagnosis in 2001, 2005 and 2008. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21:335–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mehnert A. Employment and work-related issues in cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77:109–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, van Rhenen E, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. Trends in return to work of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128(1):237–42.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    McKean-Cowdin R, Razavi P, Preston-Martin S. Brain tumours. Brain Tumours. 2008;338–47.

  14. 14.

    de Boer AG, Taskila T, Ojajarvi A, van Dijk FJ, Verbeek JH. Cancer survivors and unemployment: a metaanalysis and meta-regression. JAMA. 2009;301(7):753–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Main DS, Nowels CT, Cavender TA, Etschmaier M, Steiner J. A qualitative study of work and work return in cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2005;14(11):992–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    McKay G, Knott V, Delfabbro P. Return to work and cancer: the Australian experience. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23:93–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Nilsson MI, Olsson M, Wennman-Larsen, Petersson LM, Alexanderson K. Women’s reflections and actions regarding working after breast cancer surgery – a focus group. Psychooncology. 2013;22(7):1639–44.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. 2012. Return to work concerns faced by people dealing with cancer and caregivers. Available from:

  21. 21.

    Lindbohm M-L, Viikari-Juntura E. Cancer survivors’ return to work: importance of work accommodations and collaboration between stakeholders. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(9):578–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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. Scan J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(2):144–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yu M, Ferrucci LM, McCorkle R, et al. Employment experience of cancer survivors 2 years post-diagnosis in the Study of Cancer Survivors – 1. J Cancer Surv. 2012;6:210–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Feurestein M, Luff GM, Harrington CB, Olsen CH. Patterns of workplace disputes in cancer survivors: a population study of ADA claims. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:189–92.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Job Accommodations Network. Available at:

  26. 26.

    Shreuer N. Accommodation outcomes and the ICF framework. Assist Technol. 2009;21:94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Robinson C. Using engineering and assistive technologies for rehabilitation after electrical trauma. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;888:317–26.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Stoddard S. Personal assistance services as a workplace accommodation. Work. 2006;27:363–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shaw WS, Kristman VL, Vezina N. Workplace issues. In: Loisel P, Anema JR, editors. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 163–82.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lund T, Labriola M, Christensen KB, Bultmann U, Villadsen E. Return to work among sickness absent Danish employees: prospective results from the Danish work environment cohort study/national register on social transfer payments. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006;29(3):229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Steenstra IA, Verbeek JH, Heymans MW, Bongers PM. Prognostic factors for duration of sick leave in patients sick listed with acute low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(12):851–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Amick III BC, Habeck RV, Hunt A, et al. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviours on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(1):21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Clougherty JE, Souza K, Cullen MR. Work and its role in shaping the social gradient in health. Ann New York Acad Sci. 2010;1186(1):102–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Huang YH, Pransky GS, Shaw WS, Benjamin KL, Savageau JA. Factors affecting organizational responses of employers to workers with injuries. Work. 2006;26(1):75–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Taskila T, Boer A, van Dijk F, Verbeek J. Fatigue and its correlated in cancer patients who had returned to work—a cohort study. Psychooncology. 2011;20:1236–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Brown RF, Owens M, Bradley C. Employee to employer communication skills: balancing cancer treatment and employment. Psychooncology. 2013;22:426–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ontario Human Rights Code. Available at:

  38. 38.

    Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act: Accessibility Standards for Employment. Available at:

  39. 39.

    Grunfeld EA, Low E, Cooper AF. Cancer survivors’ and employers’ perceptions of working following cancer treatment. Occup Med. 2010;60:611–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Amir Z, Wynn P, Chan F, Strauser D, Whitaker S, Luker K. Return to work after cancer in the UK: attitudes and experiences of line managers. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:435–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    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 Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Groeneveld IF, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH. Physical exercise and return to work: cancer survivors’ experiences. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(2):237–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Schmalenberger S, Gessert CE, Glebenhain JE, Starr LD. Working after breast cancer treatment: lessons from musicians. Med Probl Perform Art. 2012;27(4):175–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Pryce J, Munir F, Haslam C. Cancer survivorship and work: symptoms, supervisor response, co-worker disclosure and work adjustment. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):83–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Grunfeld EA, Rixon L, Eaton E, Cooper AF. The organizational perspective on the return to work of employees following treatment for cancer. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Moon NW, Baker PMA. Assessing stakeholder perceptions of workplace accommodation barriers: results from a policy research instrument. J Disab Policy Stud. 2012;23(2):94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Shaw L, Lindsay R. Renewing focus and building capacity for enacting authentic collaboration in work rehabilitation. Work. 2008;30(3):215–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Shaw WS, Feuerstein M. Generating workplace accommodations: lessons learned from the integrated case management study. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(3):207–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Creswell JW. Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MN. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:543–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Gordon D, Jauregui M, Schnall P. Stakeholder perspectives on work and stress: Seeking common grounds. In: Schnall P, Dobson M, Roshkam E, editors. Unhealthy work: causes, consequences, cures. New York: Baywood Publishing Company; 2009. p. 173–92.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Stergiou-Kita M, Rappolt S, Kirsh B, Shaw L. Evaluating work readiness following acquired brain injury: building a shared understanding. Can J Occup Ther. 2009;78(4):276–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Roberts-Yates DC. Employers’ perceptions of claims/injury management and rehabilitation in South Australia. Asia Pacif J Hum Res. 2006;44(1):102–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Larsson A, Gard G. How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? a qualitative study from employers’ perspective. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):169–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Young AE. Return to work stakeholders’ perspectives on work disability. In: Loisel P, Anema JR, editors. Handbook of work disability. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 409–23.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Hoefsmit N, de Rijk A, Houkes I. Work resumption at the price of distrust: a qualitative study on return to work legislation in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:153. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Stahl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):299310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Lippel K. Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(6):519–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Stahl C, MacEachen E, Lippel K. Ethical perspectives in work disability prevention and return to work: toward a common vocabulary for analyzing stakeholders’ actions and interactions. J Bus Ethics. 2014;120:237–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Seale C. Quality in qualitative research. Qual Inq. 1999;5.

  64. 64.

    Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50–2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Williams M, Sabata D, Zolna J. User needs evaluation of workplace accommodations. Work. 2006;27:355–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Franche RL, Severin C, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Cote P, Krause N. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with early offer and acceptance of a work accommodation following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. JOEM. 2009;51(8):969–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Varakamp I, van Dijk F. Workplace problems and solutions for employees with chronic diseases. Occup Med. 2010;60:287–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Wang J, Patten S, Currie S, Sareen J, Schmitz N. Perceived needs for and use of workplace accommodations by individuals with a depressive and/or anxiety disorder. JOEM. 2011;53(11):1268–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    McDonald-Wilson K, Rogers E, Massaro J, Lyass A, Crean T. An investigation of reasonable workplace accommodations for people with psychiatric disabilities: quantitative findings from a multi-site study. Community Ment Health J. 2002;38(1):35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Canadian Human Rights Commission. Available at:

  71. 71.

    Job Accommodations Network, Available at:

Download references


This study was supported by a Grant through the Dean’s Fund, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. We would like to express our gratitude to the cancer survivors, service providers, and employer representative who gave of their time and shared their extensive expertise to assist us in developing a shared understanding of how we can facilitate workplace accommodations and support survivors with their work goals. We would also like to acknowledge the support of Holly Bradley and Well Spring in assisting us with participant recruitment.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Stergiou-Kita.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in this study, involving human participants, were in accordance with the ethical standards and approval from the ethics review boards at the University of Toronto and the University Health Network, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


This study was supported by a grant through the Dean’s Fund, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto (Award #DF-2013-17).

Conflict of interest

All authors of this paper have no conflict of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stergiou-Kita, M., Pritlove, C., van Eerd, D. et al. The provision of workplace accommodations following cancer: survivor, provider, and employer perspectives. J Cancer Surviv 10, 489–504 (2016).

Download citation


  • Cancer
  • Cancer survivors
  • Return to work
  • Employment supports
  • Workplace accommodations