Search

Introduction The number of cancer survivors in a working age is rising. An awareness of factors associated with adverse work outcomes, and of supportive interventions, is needed. Sources of data A narrative review of research obtained via several databases, including Medline and PsycINFO, was conducted. Areas of agreement A range of factors is associated with adverse work outcomes such as prolonged sick leave, delayed return to work, disability pension and unemployment in cancer survivors. They include the cancer type and treatment, fatigue, cognitive functioning, work factors and elements of health care systems. Effective supportive interventions encompass physical and multicomponent interventions. Areas of controversy The role of behaviour determinants and legislative and insurance systems is unclear. It is furthermore uncertain what the optimal timing of delivering supportive interventions is. Growing points Further focus on vulnerable groups, including specific cancer types and those with lower income, lower educational level and in precarious employment, is needed. Areas timely for developing research Recent developments are tailored and timely interventions.

Purposes Healthcare workers are at risk of stress-related disorders. Risk communication can be an effective preventive health measure for some health risks, but is not yet common in the prevention of stress-related disorders in an occupational healthcare setting. The overall aim is to examine whether risk communication was part of interventions aimed at the prevention of stress-related disorders in healthcare workers. Method We performed a scoping review using the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We searched in Medline, Web of Science and PsychInfo for studies reporting on preventive interventions of stress-related disorders in healthcare workers between 2005 and December 2020. Studies were included when the intervention reported on at least one element of risk communication and one goal. We predefined four elements of risk communication: risk perception, communication of early stress symptoms, risk factors and prevention; and three goals: inform, stimulate informed decision-making and motivate action. Results We included 23 studies that described 17 interventions. None of the included interventions were primarily developed as risk communication interventions, but all addressed the goals. Two interventions used all four elements of risk communication. The prominent mode of delivery was face to face, mostly delivered by researchers. Early stress symptoms and risk factors were measured by surveys. Conclusions Risk communication on risk factors and early signs of stress-related disorders is not that well studied and evaluated in an occupational healthcare setting. Overall, the content of the communication was not based on the risk perception of the healthcare workers, which limited the likelihood of them taking action.

Background: Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms. Search methods: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms. Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that:. 1. focus one’s attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);. 2. focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);. 3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that. 4. combine two or more of the above. The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended). Main results: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised. The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants. Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention. Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention. Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention. Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention. A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention. Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type. Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar. Authors' conclusions: Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To determine the effect of ergonomic interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes.

Purpose The MiLES intervention is a web-based intervention targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing successful return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the employers’ use and perceived usefulness of the MiLES intervention. Methods Employer representatives (e.g. Human Resource managers and supervisors) were given access to the MiLES intervention, which contains, among others, interactive videos, conversation checklists and tailored tips. After six weeks, an online questionnaire gathered data on employers’ use and the perceived usefulness of the intervention. In-depth qualitative data on these topics were gathered during semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using a content analysis. Results Thirty-one eligible employers were included. Twenty-two of them filled out the questionnaire and twenty were interviewed. Typically, employers used the intervention 2–3 times, for 26 min per visit. The usefulness of the intervention scored 7.6 out of 10 points, and all employers would recommend it to colleagues. Employers’ use decreased when support needs were low and when the intervention did not correspond with their specific situation (e.g. complex reintegration trajectories). Employers perceived the intervention to be supporting and practically oriented. They appreciated the fact that the intervention was web-based and combined visual and textual content. The possibility of consulting specialized services for complex situations would further enhance its usefulness. Conclusion The MiLES intervention provides employers with a useful tool in their daily practice. Its effectiveness for enhancing employers’ managerial skills and cancer survivors’ successful RTW is subject for further research.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that cancer survivors are able to return to work. However, little is known about their work situation 5 years after diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To explore fluctuations in employment status and its association with quality of life 2, 3, and 5 years after cancer diagnosis of 65 cancer survivors employed at diagnosis. METHODS: In association with a randomised controlled trial (RCT), questionnaires were administrated to eligible cancer survivors at diagnosis, 2, 3, and 5 years thereafter comprising of validated questionnaires related to work (i.e. Work Ability Index (WAI), cancer, and quality of life (QOL) (i.e. SF-36, VAS QOL). The RCT studied a hospital-based work support intervention in female breast and gynaecological cancer survivors who were treated with curative intent and had paid work at diagnosis. Descriptive statistics and longitudinal multi-level analysis were employed. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 102 eligible cancer survivors participated, who were primarily diagnosed with breast cancer (63%). Two and 5 years after cancer diagnosis respectively 63 (97%) and 48 (81%) participants were employed. Reasons for not being employed after 5 years included receiving unemployment benefits (7%), voluntary unemployment (3%), receiving disability benefits (3%), and early retirement (3%). Longitudinal multi-level analysis showed that employed cancer survivors reported in general statistically significant better quality of life outcomes at 5 years follow-up compared to those not being employed. CONCLUSIONS: We found high employment rates and few fluctuations in employment status. The steepest decline in employment rate occurs after the first two years of diagnosis. Employed participants reported better quality of life outcomes. Survivorship care should therefore focus on the population at risk possibly within the first two years after diagnosis.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop an intervention targeting employers, with the aim of enhancing cancer survivors’ return to work (RTW). Methods Intervention Mapping was used to combine information gathered from several procedures involving numerous stakeholders, for example, employers, cancer survivors, oncological occupational physicians, and e-health experts. Results Employers indicated that they require tailored support during four RTW phases: (1) disclosure, (2) treatment, (3) RTW planning, and (4) actual RTW. The most important employer actions were identified for each RTW phase, for instance, “communicate,” “support practically,” and “assess work ability,” and thereafter formulated as the performance objectives of the intervention. The trans-theoretical model of change was used as a theoretical framework, and several methodologies were employed to induce the desired behavior change, for example modeling, tailoring, and active learning. Subsequently, a web-based intervention with interactive videos, conversation checklists, links to reliable external sources, and succinct, tailored tips and information was developed and adjusted on the basis of pre-tests with different stakeholders. Conclusions The intervention was developed with input from employers and all relevant stakeholders in the RTW of cancer survivors. The systematic, step-wise development resulted in a succinct and easily accessible intervention targeting the most important employer actions during all RTW phases. As such, the intervention corresponds with employers’ needs and preferences in practice. Implications for cancer survivors By providing employers with support, the intervention could well be the missing link in efforts to optimize the work participation of cancer survivors.

Purpose Implementation of return to work (RTW) programs for cancer survivors has proved to be challenging. The purpose of our study was to gather experiences about barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors in four European countries. Methods Separate multidisciplinary focus groups were held in Belgium (n = 8), the Netherlands (n = 8), Ireland (n = 6), and UK (n = 4) in 2017 and included among others a physician, and a representative of an employer, a cancer society, and the government. Primary focus of thematic analysis was what could be done to improve the implementation of RTW programs for cancer survivors. Analysis used the ‘Arena in work disability prevention model’ as the conceptual framework. Results Many barriers to and facilitators of implementing RTW programs for cancer survivors were described including the personal, workplace, healthcare and legislative system as well as the overall societal and political context. That is, for example cooperation between stakeholders, time, money and ability issues at the workplace, and insufficient/inadequate legislation. Insufficient knowledge of cancer and its implications for work was identified as an overarching theme in all countries leading to stigma, misconceptions and lack of communication. This was mentioned in relation to the workplace, personal and healthcare system, and in the overall societal context. Conclusions Results indicate that a prerequisite for implementing RTW programs is raising sufficient knowledge regarding cancer and its implications for work. Greater knowledge could be a first step to better implement RTW programs which may result in better supporting cancer survivors with their RTW .

Purpose Employers are important stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of employees with cancer. However, it is unclear what employer actions are most important to that process. The objective, therefore, was to reach consensus on what employer actions are considered most important for the RTW of employees with cancer, by employers and employees separately. Methods A two-round online Delphi study was conducted with two expert panels: one with 23 employers and one with 29 employees with cancer. The results from each panel were analysed separately. Out of 24 suggested employer actions, participants selected the 10 they considered most important for RTW in each of the following RTW phases: (1) disclosure, (2) treatment, (3) RTW plan, and (4) actual RTW. The consensus threshold was set at ≥ 80% during the second round. Results The employer and employee expert panels both reached consensus on the importance of 'emotional support', 'practical support', 'allow sufficient sick leave', 'plan return to work', 'adjust expectations', 'assess work ability', and 'show appreciation'. Employers also reached consensus on 'communicate' and 'treat normally', and employees on 'handle unpredictability'. All these employer actions were considered to be specific for one to three RTW phases. Conclusions Employers reached consensus on the importance of nine employer actions, employees on eight. Both stakeholder perspectives showed great similarities, but did vary regarding important employer actions during the employee's treatment. We recommend developing interventions targeting the employer, meeting both employer and employee needs in each RTW phase, to enhance RTW support for employees with cancer.

Purpose: To identify which factors are associated with adverse work outcome 5-10 years after diagnosis.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, breast cancer survivors, treated between 2003 and 2008, completed a questionnaire 5-10 years after diagnosis. Adverse work outcome was defined as not having paid employment or working > 20% less compared to prediagnosis. Logistic regression analyses were conducted.Results: Of 906 participants, 326 (36%) had an adverse work outcome. In multivariable analyses, the probability of an adverse work outcome increased with age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07), time since diagnosis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37), and was higher among women who stated that work had become less important (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.94-4.62). Factors associated with a lower probability of an adverse work outcome were having sufficient financial resources (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.66), higher total work ability (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.69), feeling supported at work (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.80), and, prior to diagnosis, having more children to take care of (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79), being able to adjust working hours (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83) and not desiring to work less hours if that were to be financially feasible (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.2).Conclusions: Predominantly, work-related factors are associated with adverse work outcomes 5-10 years after diagnosis, whereas clinical factors are not. Our results need validation in prospective cohort studies, after which supportive interventions could be developed.Implications for Cancer Survivors: Work-related factors should be considered in future interventions to prevent adverse work outcome 5-10 years after diagnosis.

Abstract Purpose Purpose is to: (1) study effectiveness of the hospital-based work support intervention for cancer patients at two years of follow-up compared to usual care and (2) identify which early factors predict time to return-to-work (RTW). Methods In this multi-center randomised controlled trial (RCT), 106 (self-)employed cancer patients were randomized to an intervention group or control group and provided 2 years of follow-up data. The intervention group received patient education and work-related support at the hospital. Primary outcome was RTW (rate and time) and quality of life (SF-36), and secondary outcomes were, work ability (WAI), and work functioning (WLQ). Univariate Cox regression analyses were performed to study which early factors predict time to full RTW. Results Participants were diagnosed with breast (61%), gynaecological cancer (35%), or other type of cancer (4%). RTW rates were 84% and 90% for intervention versus control group. They were high compared to national register-based studies. No differences between groups were found on any of the outcomes. Receiving chemotherapy (HR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.59–3.73 p Conclusions We found high RTW rates compared to national register-based studies and we found no differences between groups. Future studies should therefore focus on reaching the group at risk, which consist of patients who receive chemotherapy, have a low level of education and have a low work ability at diagnosis. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1658): NTR1658.

Background Employers express a need for support during sickness absence and return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. Therefore, a web-based intervention (MiLES) targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing cancer survivors’ successful RTW has been developed. This study aimed to assess feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Also preliminary results on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention were obtained. Methods A randomised feasibility trial of 6 months was undertaken with cancer survivors aged 18–63 years, diagnosed with cancer Results Thirty-five cancer survivors were included via medical specialists (4% of the initially invited group) and open invitations, and thereafter randomised to the intervention (n = 24) or control group (n = 11). Most participants were female (97%) with breast cancer (80%) and a permanent employment contract (94%). All predefined criteria for feasibility of a future definitive RCT were achieved, except that concerning the study’s reach (90 participants). After 6 months, 92% of the intervention group and 100% of the control group returned to work (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81–1.03); no difference were found with regard to secondary effect measures. Conclusions With the current design a future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention on successful RTW of cancer survivors is not feasible, since recruitment of survivors fell short of the predefined minimum for feasibility. There was selection bias towards survivors at low risk of adverse work outcomes, which reduced generalisability of the outcomes. An alternative study design is needed to study effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Trial registration The study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NL6758/NTR7627).

Simple Summary Previous research indicated that cancer survivors have a higher risk of loss of paid employment. This is unfortunate as work is important for cancer survivors because it contributes to financial independency and quality of life. Not much work has been done on patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer while it is one of the most common cancers in the working population. We compared a group of 12,007 colorectal cancer survivors up to four years after diagnosis with the general population. We found that colorectal cancer survivors had a 56% higher risk of loss of paid employment, mainly due to work disability. Within the group of colorectal cancer survivors, those being younger, having a higher cancer stage and receiving radiotherapy, had a higher risk of loss of paid employment. Colorectal cancer survivors at high risk of loss of paid employment may benefit from work support interventions as part of cancer survivorship care. Abstract Cancer survivors consider work as a key aspect of cancer survivorship while previous research indicated that cancer survivors have a higher risk of unemployment. The objectives were to assess: (1) whether colorectal cancer survivors less often have paid employment at diagnosis compared to a population-based reference group, (2) whether colorectal cancer survivors with paid work have a higher risk of loss of employment up to 4 years after diagnosis compared to a population-based reference group and (3) which colorectal cancer survivors are at highest risk of loss of paid employment. In a nationwide register-based study, persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer (N = 12,007) as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry, were compared on loss of paid employment with a sex and age-matched population-based reference group (N = 48,028) from Statistics Netherlands. Cox regression analyses were conducted. Colorectal cancer survivors had a higher risk of loss of paid employment (HR 1.56 [1.42, 1.71]). Within the group of colorectal cancer survivors, risk of loss of paid employment was lower for older survivors (>60 vs. 45–55) (HR 0.64 [0.51, 0.81]) and higher for those with a more advanced cancer stage (IV vs. I) (HR 1.89 [1.33, 2.70]) and those receiving radiotherapy (HR 1.37 [1.15, 1.63]). Colorectal cancer survivors at high risk of loss of paid employment may benefit from work support interventions as part of cancer survivorship.

Marinaccio and colleagues are applauded for providing valuable data on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 due to exposure in the workplace in Italy.1 Once again, this emphasises the importance of an assessment of the working circumstances and registration of occupational diseases. Data on work-related COVID-19 in the study of Marinaccio and colleagues was based on compensation claims of workers. In the Netherlands, an expert-based one-page guidance document for assessment and reporting of COVID-19 as occupational disease was developed by occupational physicians and data specialists. This guidance document, based on the general 6-step approach,2 was published on the website of the Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases3 and communicated by newsletters. Occupational COVID-19 reports, International Classification of Diseases-10 code U.071, contain …

Background The aim of this study was to identify case definitions of diagnostic criteria for specific musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) for use in occupational healthcare, surveillance or research. Methods A scoping review was performed in Medline and Web of Science from 2000 to 2020 by an international team of researchers and clinicians, using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to identify case definitions based on expert consensus or a synthesis of the literature. Seven MSDs were considered: non-specific low back pain (LBP), lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS), subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), lateral or medial elbow tendinopathy, and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Case definitions for occupational healthcare or research were charted according to symptoms, signs and instrumental assessment of signs, and if reported, on work-related exposure criteria. Results In total, 2404 studies were identified of which 39 were included. Fifteen studies (38%) reported on non-specific LBP, followed by knee OA (n = 8;21%) and CTS (n = 8;21%). For non-specific LBP, studies agreed in general on which symptoms (i.e., pain in lower back) and signs (i.e., absence of red flags) constituted a case definition while for the other MSDs considerable heterogeneity was found. Only two studies (5%), describing case definitions for LBP, CTS, and SAPS and lateral and medial elbow tendinopathy respectively, included work-related exposure criteria in their clinical assessment. Conclusion We found that studies on non-specific LBP agreed in general on which symptoms and signs constitute a case definition, while considerable heterogeneity was found for the other MSDs. For prevention of work-related MSDs, these MSD case definitions should preferably include work-related exposure criteria.

Background One of the main aims of rehabilitation is to improve participation. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) item banks ‘Ability to Participate in Social roles and Activities, (PROMIS-APS) and ‘Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities’ (PROMIS-SPS) are promising options to measure participation, but the literature on PROMIS measures of (satisfaction with) participation across diagnoses in rehabilitation is limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe levels of and changes in participation, as assessed with the PROMIS-APS and the PROMIS-SPS short forms, of patients in outpatient rehabilitation. Methods This study had quantitative, observational design with assessments at admission and discharge. Consecutive patients treated between April and August 2018 receiving outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation were the population of this study. The following diagnosis categories were included: brain injury (e.g. stroke), spinal cord and nerve injury, neuromuscular disorder (e.g. lateral sclerosis), amputation, musculoskeletal condition (e.g. osteoarthritis) or heart or lung disease (e.g. myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). The main patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of this study were the short form of the PROMIS-APS (8 items, Dutch general population reference score 50.6 [SD 9.5]), and PROMIS-SPS (8 items, Dutch general population reference score 47.5 [SD 8.3]. Results Of the 1279 patients invited, 777 (61%) completed the online forms at admission. Of those, 329 patients were invited at discharge, with 209 (64%) completing the forms. The mean (SD) T-scores of the PROMIS-APS and PROMIS-SPS were lower at admission (42.7 [SD 7.4]; (41.4 [SD 7.7]) and discharge (43.6 [SD 7.2]; (43.7 [SD 7.8]) than the Dutch general population. The change scores of the PROMIS-APS and PROMIS-SPS were 1.2 (95% CI 0.4–1.9; p = 0.004; effect size 0.16), and 2.4 (95% CI 1.6–3.2; p 30 paired measurements statistically significant improvements of PROMIS-APS, PROMIS-SPS or both were seen. Conclusions Patients undergoing outpatient rehabilitation had, both at admission and discharge, considerably lower PROMIS-APS and PROMIS-SPS T-scores short forms than the general Dutch population, and showed small T-score improvements at discharge.

PurposePrevious research indicated that the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) item bank v2.0 ‘Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities’ may miss subdomains of social participation. The purpose of this study was to generate items for these missing subdomains and to evaluate their content validity.MethodsA three-step approach was followed: (1) Item generation for 16 International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health subdomains currently not covered by the item bank; (2) Evaluation of content validity of generated items through expert review (n = 20) and think-aloud interviews with a purposeful sample of people with and without (chronic) health conditions (n = 10), to assess item comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness; and 3) Item revision based on the results of step 2, in a consensus procedure.ResultsFirst, 48 items were generated. Second, overall, content experts indicated that the generated items were relevant. Furthermore, based on experts’ responses, items were simplified and ‘participation in social media’ was identified as an important additional subdomain of social participation. Additionally, ‘participating in various social roles simultaneously’ was identified as a missing item. Based on the responses of the interviewed adults items were simplified. Third, in total 17 items, covering 17 subdomains, were proposed to be added to the original item bank.DiscussionThe relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the 17 proposed items were supported. Whether the proposed extension of the item bank leads to better psychometric properties of the item bank should be tested in a large-scale field study.

Health interventions often do not reach blue-collar workers. Citizen science engages target groups in the design and execution of health interventions, but has not yet been applied in an occupational setting. This preliminary study determines barriers and facilitators and feasible elements for citizen science to improve the health of blue-collar workers. The study was conducted in a terminal and construction company by performing semi-structured interviews and focus groups with employees, company management and experts. Interviews and focus groups were analyzed using thematic content analysis and the elements were pilot tested. Workers considered work pressure, work location and several personal factors as barriers for citizen science at the worksite, and (lack of) social support and (negative) social culture both as barriers and facilitators. Citizen science to improve health at the worksite may include three elements: (1) knowledge and skills, (2) social support and social culture, and (3) awareness about lifestyle behaviors. Strategies to implement these elements may be company specific. This study provides relevant indications on feasible elements and strategies for citizen science to improve health at the worksite. Further studies on the feasibility of citizen science in other settings, including a larger and more heterogeneous sample of blue-collar workers, are necessary.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study aimed to identify hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) survivors' (1) work perceptions; (2) barriers to and facilitators of return to work (RTW); and (3) possible solutions to improve RTW.METHOD: Fifteen patients treated with HSCT 1-5 years ago participated in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed following the steps of thematic content analyses.RESULTS: RTW was often characterized as a complex and prolonged trajectory, and it was frequently incomplete in working hours, tasks, and/or responsibilities. Work perceptions varied between patients; most valued work as positive, but some also reported a decline in work capacity and/or in importance. Perceived barriers included the duration and side effects of cancer treatment, the presence of comorbidity and poor health before diagnosis, having difficulties commuting and doing household tasks. Perceived facilitators were financial incentives, keeping in touch with the workplace, support of other patients and family, and looking after one's health. Proposed solutions to improve RTW included discussing RTW at the hospital, enhanced employer support, improved accessibility of rehabilitation programs, and more information about the consequences of being sick-listed.CONCLUSIONS: Many HSCT survivors value work as important and they are motivated to RTW. Insight in work perceptions, RTW barriers, and solutions might help researchers, healthcare professionals, and employers to develop and/or tailor individualized multidisciplinary care to facilitate RTW.

Abstract Work is a key contributor to quality of life and an important aspect of cancer survivorship. We call attention to current topics in cancer survivorship and work with 12 articles on cancer survivorship and work in this special section. The focus is on less studied diagnostic groups such as gastrointestinal cancer and prostate cancer, and on long-term effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on work. Furthermore, studies are included on topics not generally studied including cognitive limitations and pain, the role of the employer on work outcomes among different types of cancer survivors and some countries not typically covered in the existing literature on work and cancer survivorship. We conclude that to improve sustainable work participation in cancer survivors, personalised, tailored interventions should be provided. A prerequisite for this is the identification of groups and individuals at high risk for adverse work outcomes. In order to develop such interventions, research involving new approaches such as matching data registries, participatory approaches and the involvement of many stakeholders and survivors with these different types of cancer diagnoses is necessary. Implications for Cancer Survivors The goal of sustainable work participation in cancer survivors can be improved by the delivery of a personalised or risk-based tailored intervention. Furthermore, successful work outcomes often involve many stakeholders who should all be included Implications for Cancer Survivors. The goal of sustainable work participation in cancer survivors can be improved by the delivery of a personalised or risk-based tailored intervention. Furthermore, successful work outcomes often involve many stakeholders who should all be included.

Return to work (RTW) following treatment can be problematic for cancer survivors. Although some people affected by cancer are able to continue working, a greater proportion of these survivors end up unemployed, retire early or change jobs than those without a diagnosis of cancer. One of the reasons for not returning to work is the lack of understanding and support from employers and supervisors. Currently, it is not clear what factors are likely to influence the employer’s management of employees recovering from cancer. This article reports the outcome from a review of the published literature on factors related to the current employer management of employed cancer survivors.

Objective To identify employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors from the perspective of both employers and cancer survivors, and to synthesise these perceived barriers and facilitators to understand their perceived consequences. Methods A systematic review of qualitative studies focusing on employers' and cancer survivors' perspectives on the work participation of cancer survivors was performed. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Business Source Premier) were systematically searched, and the quality of studies included was assessed using the CASP checklist. Perceived barriers and facilitators were extracted and synthesised to conduct a content analysis. Results Five studies representing the employers' perspectives and 47 studies representing the cancer survivors' perspectives were included. Employers perceived barriers and facilitators related to support, communication, RTW policies, knowledge about cancer, balancing interests and roles, and attitude. Survivors perceived barriers and facilitators related to support, communication, work environment, discrimination, and perception of work ability. The synthesis found that the employers' willingness to support can be understood by perceptions they have of the survivor, goals of the employer, and national or organisational policies. Employers require knowledge about cancer and RTW policies to be able to support survivors. Conclusions This review identified a plurality of and a large variety in perceived employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors, which can be understood to be related to both employers' willingness and ability to support. There is a need for interventions targeting employers, with the aim of enhancing the sustainable work participation of cancer survivors.

Purpose and methods Cancer survivors have a higher risk of adverse work outcomes such as not being able to return to work (RTW). The process of returning to work is complex as a result of the diverse stakeholders and numerous factors involved related to the employee diagnosed with cancer, the work environment, health care system, and the legal system. One of the key stakeholders is the employer, as the employer is in the position to facilitate work accommodations. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to consider opportunities regarding the role of the employer to enhance the work participation of employees with cancer. Results and conclusions We currently know little about which aspects of employer support have a positive impact on the ability of employees diagnosed with cancer to retain at work or RTW. In addition, there is a lack of interventions and tools which support employers in their management of employees diagnosed with cancer. The inclusion of employer support into the workplace can help employees diagnosed with cancer with their work retention and RTW, which is an important aspect of their quality of life and benefits the society at large.

Purpose This study explored employer’s perspectives on (1) their experience of good practice related to workers diagnosed with cancer and their return to work (RTW), and (2) their perceived needs necessary to achieve good practice as reported by employers from nine separate countries. Methods Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were held in eight European countries and Israel with two to three employers typically including HR managers or line managers from both profit and non-profit organisations of different sizes and sectors. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory/thematic analysis approach was completed. Results Employers’ experience with RTW assistance for workers with cancer appears to be a dynamic process. Results indicate that good practice includes six phases: (1) reacting to disclosure, (2) collecting information, (3) decision-making related to initial actions, (4) remaining in touch, (5) decision-making on RTW, and (6) follow-up. The exact details of the process are shaped by country, employer type, and worker characteristics; however, there was consistency related to the need for (1) structured procedures, (2) collaboration, (3) communication skills training, (4) information on cancer, and (5) financial resources for realizing RTW support measures. Conclusions Notwithstanding variations at country, employer, and worker levels, the employers from all nine countries reported that good practice regarding RTW assistance in workers with a history of cancer consists of the six phases above. Employers indicate that they would benefit from shared collaboration and resources that support good practice for this human resource matter. Implications for cancer survivors Further research and development based on the six phases of employer support as a framework for a tool or strategy to support workers with a history of cancer across countries and organisations is warranted.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to improve the measurement of participation. Research questions were as follows: (1) What constitutes participation according to adults? (2) Do they mention participation subdomains that are not covered in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item bank “Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities”? Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 adults from the general population. Interviews were thematically analysed using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as conceptual framework. Thereafter, assigned codes were compared to PROMIS item bank. Results: Participants mentioned a variety of participation subdomains that were meaningful to them, such as socializing and employment. All subdomains could be classified into the ICF. The following subdomains were not covered by the PROMIS item bank: acquisition of necessities, education life, economic life, community life, and religion and spirituality. Also a distinction between remunerative (i.e. paid) and non-remunerative (i.e. unpaid) employment, and domestic life was missing. Several ICF sub-codes were not mentioned, such as ceremonies. Conclusions: Many participation subdomains were mentioned to be meaningful. As several of these subdomains are not covered in the PROMIS item bank, it may benefit from extension with new (patient-)reported subdomains of participation.

The purpose of this study was to develop an intervention targeting employers, with the aim of enhancing cancer survivors' return to work (RTW).Intervention Mapping was used to combine information gathered from several procedures involving numerous stakeholders, for example, employers, cancer survivors, oncological occupational physicians, and e-health experts.Employers indicated that they require tailored support during four RTW phases: (1) disclosure, (2) treatment, (3) RTW planning, and (4) actual RTW. The most important employer actions were identified for each RTW phase, for instance, "communicate," "support practically," and "assess work ability," and thereafter formulated as the performance objectives of the intervention. The trans-theoretical model of change was used as a theoretical framework, and several methodologies were employed to induce the desired behavior change, for example modeling, tailoring, and active learning. Subsequently, a web-based intervention with interactive videos, conversation checklists, links to reliable external sources, and succinct, tailored tips and information was developed and adjusted on the basis of pre-tests with different stakeholders.The intervention was developed with input from employers and all relevant stakeholders in the RTW of cancer survivors. The systematic, step-wise development resulted in a succinct and easily accessible intervention targeting the most important employer actions during all RTW phases. As such, the intervention corresponds with employers' needs and preferences in practice.By providing employers with support, the intervention could well be the missing link in efforts to optimize the work participation of cancer survivors.

Om werkhervatting en/of behoud van werk te bevorderen onder mensen die een diagnose kanker hebben (gehad) is er onderzoek gedaan naar hun ervaringen en beleving van de werksituatie, oftewel hun kwaliteit van werken. De kwaliteit van werken van werkenden die een diagnose kanker hebben (gehad) is beschreven en geevalueerd met een nieuw ontwikkeld meetinstrument, de Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). Deze vragenlijst is ontwikkeld om de kwaliteit van werken te meten van mensen die een diagnose kanker hebben (gehad) en op enig moment in de afgelopen vier weken hebben gewerkt. Deze vragenlijst bestaat uit 23 vragen en is een valide en betrouwbaar meetinstrument voor de bedrijfs- en verzekeringsgeneeskundige praktijk.

Doel van dit onderzoek is te inventariseren tegen welke problemen in het werk werknemer en werkgever aanlopen wanneer een werknemer kanker krijgt. Daarnaast te onderzoeken welke oplossing zij gekozen hebben en waar werknemer en werkgever (specifiek) behoefte aan hebben. In het onderzoek is een literatuurstudie gedaan en zijn focusgroepen met werknemers en interviews met werkgevers uitgevoerd. Werknemers hebben bovenal behoefte aan begrip, ondersteuning en meer kennis over kanker en werk op de werkvloer. In samenwerking met de werkgever en bedrijfsarts willen zij een plan van aanpak op maat met oog voor de langetermijngevolgen van de diagnose en behandeling. Werkgevers willen meer ondersteuning van de bedrijfsarts of van een externe deskundige voor henzelf en voor de werknemer. Ook is er behoefte aan minder strakke regelgeving waarin flexibiliteit en maatwerk mogelijk zijn. Tot slot hebben werkgevers behoefte aan adequate informatie over de re-integratiemogelijkheden en aan financiele compensatie.

PURPOSE: Remaining in paid work is of great importance for cancer survivors, and employers play a crucial role in achieving this. Return to work (RTW) is best seen as a process. This study aims to provide insight into (1) Dutch employers' experiences with RTW of employees with cancer and (2) the employers' needs for support regarding this process. METHODS: Thirty employer representatives of medium and large for-profit and non-profit organizations were interviewed to investigate their experiences and needs in relation to employees with cancer. A Grounded Theory approach was used. RESULTS: We revealed a trajectory of complex communication and decision-making during different stages, from the moment the employee disclosed that they had been diagnosed to the period after RTW, permanent disability, or the employee's passing away. Employers found this process demanding due to various dilemmas. Dealing with an unfavorable diagnosis and balancing both the employer's and the employee's interests were found to be challenging. Two types of approach to support RTW of employees with cancer were distinguished: (1) a business-oriented approach and (2) a care-oriented approach. Differences in approach were related to differences in organizational structure and employer and employee characteristics. Employers expressed a need for communication skills, information, and decision-making skills to support employees with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The employers interviewed stated that dealing with an employee with cancer is demanding and that the extensive Dutch legislation on RTW did not offer all the support needed. We recommend providing them with easily accessible information on communication and leadership training to better support employees with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: • Supporting employers by training communication and decision-making skills and providing information on cancer will contribute to improving RTW support for employees with cancer. • Knowing that the employer will usually be empathic when an employee reveals that they have been diagnosed with cancer, and that the employer also experiences difficulties and dilemmas, might lower the threshold to discuss wishes regarding disclosure, communication, and work issues. • The interests of employer and employee in relation to RTW are interrelated; both have responsibility and a role to play, and are in need of support. ispartof: Journal of Cancer Survivorship-Research and Practice vol:11 issue:5 pages:562-577 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Purpose This study aimed to (1) describe the Quality of Working Life (QWL) of cancer survivors and (2) explore associations between the QWL of cancer survivors and health- and work-related variables. Methods Employed and self-employed cancer survivors were recruited through hospitals and patient organizations. They completed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS) and health- and work-related variables in this cross-sectional study. The QWL scores of cancer survivors were described, and associations between QWL and health- and work-related variables were assessed. Results The QWLQ-CS was completed by 302 cancer survivors (28% male) with a mean age of 52 ± 8 years. They were diagnosed between 0 and 10 years ago with various types of cancer, such as breast cancers, gastrointestinal cancers, urological cancers, and haematological cancers. The QWL mean score of cancer survivors was 75 ± 12 (0–100). Cancer survivors had statistically significant lower QWL scores when they had been treated with chemotherapy or when they reported co-morbidity (p ≤ 0.05). Cancer survivors without managerial positions, with low incomes or physically demanding work, and who worked a proportion of their contract hours had statistically significantly lower QWL scores (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions This study described the QWL of cancer survivors and associations between QWL and health- and work-related variables. Based on these variables, it is possible to indicate groups of cancer survivors who need more attention and support regarding QWL and work continuation.

International audience; Purpose To describe: (i) patterns of self-employment and social welfare provisions for self-employed and salaried workers in several European countries; (ii) work-related outcomes after cancer in self-employed people and to compare these with the work-related outcomes of salaried survivors within each sample; and (iii) work-related outcomes for self-employed cancer survivors across countries. Methods Data from 11 samples from seven European countries were included. All samples had cross-sectional survey data on work outcomes in self-employed and salaried cancer survivors who were working at time of diagnosis (n = 22–261 self-employed/101–1871 salaried). The samples included different cancers and assessed different outcomes at different times post-diagnosis. Results Fewer self-employed cancer survivors took time off work due to cancer compared to salaried survivors. More self-employed than salaried survivors worked post-diagnosis in almost all countries. Among those working at the time of survey, self-employed survivors had made a larger reduction in working hours compared to pre-diagnosis, but they still worked more hours per week post-diagnosis than salaried survivors. The self-employed had received less financial compensation when absent from work post-cancer, and more self-employed, than salaried, survivors reported a negative financial change due to the cancer. There were differences between self-employed and salaried survivors in physical job demands, work ability and quality-of-life but the direction and magnitude of the differences differed across countries. Conclusion Despite sample differences, self-employed survivors more often continued working during treatment and had, in general, worse financial outcomes than salaried cancer survivors. Other work-related outcomes differed in different directions across countries.

Introduction Previous research on employees with a chronic disease, including employees who have been diagnosed and treated for cancer, mainly focused on work outcomes such as absence from work, productivity and unemployment. It has been seldom taken into account how employees with a chronic disease experience their working life and how they value their work. The concept of Quality of Working Life encompasses the subjective work experiences of working individuals. This study aimed to: describe issues that contribute to the Quality of Working Life (QWL) of employees with a chronic physical disease, and to identify important QWL issues of cancer survivors. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify experiences and perceptions during the working life of employees with a chronic physical disease. These experiences were synthesised into issues that contributed to their QWL. During three focus groups with 24 cancer survivors, issues contributing to their QWL were discussed. Results An overview of 73 QWL issues was found which could be identified into five categories: individual work perceptions including issues about enjoyment and evaluation work of life priorities; social structure and environment containing issues about disclosure, discrimination, misunderstanding and awareness by employers and colleagues; organisational characteristics such as communication and decision making; job characteristics including work accommodations; and effect of disease and treatment on work ability. The issues discussed by cancer survivors in the focus groups included several themes including feelings, such as ‘feeling safe and familiar at work’ and work issues such as ‘working gives me structure in life’. Discussion This study described QWL issues of employees with a chronic physical disease and of cancer survivors. These issues may function as a starting point for occupational support and evaluation of OHS studies.

Introduction Studies on cancer survivors’ (CS) return to work (RTW) after cancer have mostly focused on salaried workers. RTW among self-employed CS has almost not been focused although there are big differences in these two groups’ working conditions and social welfare provisions. The aim of this study is therefore to bring together data from multiple European countries to: describe RTW–related outcomes after cancer in self–employed people; compare these outcomes for the self–employed with those for salaried workers; and describe RTW–related outcomes after cancer for self–employed people across countries. Methods Eleven cross-sectional studies from seven countries were included. All studies had survey data on work-outcomes in self-employed and salaried CS who were employed at time of diagnosis (n=22–261 self-employed/101–1627 salaried). The studies included different cancers and assessed different outcomes at different times post-diagnosis. Results Fewer self-employed CS took time off work due to cancer compared to salaried survivors. More self-employed than salaried worked post-diagnosis in almost all countries. Among those working at the time of survey, self-employed survivors had made a larger reduction in working hours compared to pre-diagnosis, but they still worked more hours per week post-diagnosis than salaried survivors. The self-employed had received less financial compensation when absent from work post-cancer, and more self-employed, than salaried, survivors reported a negative financial change due to the cancer. There were differences between self-employed and salaried survivors in physical job demands, work ability and quality-of-life but the direction and magnitude of the differences differed across countries. Discussion Self-employed and salaried CS differ when it comes to RTW-related outcomes, but the patterns vary between countries. Support should be provides to self-employed survivors to help them balance their health needs with those of their business.

Introduction To measure Quality of Working Life (QWL) among cancer survivors, and to take account of the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on a cancer survivors’ working life, we developed the self-administered Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). QWL is an important predictor of work continuation. This study aimed to: describe the Quality of Working Life (QWL) of cancer survivors, and explore associations between the QWL of cancer survivors and health– and work–related variables. Methods Employed and self-employed cancer survivors were recruited through hospitals and patient organisations. They completed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS) and health- and work-related variables in a cross-sectional study. The QWL scores of cancer survivors were described and associations between QWL and health- and work-related variables were assessed. Result The QWLQ-CS was completed by 302 cancer survivors (28% male) with a mean age of 52±8 years. They were diagnosed between 0 and 10 years ago with various types of cancer, such as breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, urological cancers and haematological cancers. The QWL mean score of cancer survivors was 75±12 (0–100). Cancer survivors had statistically significant lower QWL scores when they had been treated with chemotherapy or when they reported co-morbidity (p ≤ 0.05). Cancer survivors without managerial positions, with low incomes or physically demanding work, and who worked a proportion of their contract hours had statistically significantly lower QWL scores (p ≤ 0.05). Discussion This study described the QWL of cancer survivors and associations between QWL and health- and work-related variables. Based on these variables it is possible to indicate groups of cancer survivors who need more attention and support regarding QWL and work continuation.

Introduction Employees with cancer consider return to work (RTW) a key aspect of cancer survivorship. Employers are in the position to guide employees with cancer, but also express a need for support. The objective of this study is therefore to identify employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of employees with cancer, from the perspective of both employers and employees with cancer, and to synthesise these to understand their perceived consequences. Methods A systematic review of qualitative studies focussing on perspectives of employers and employees with cancer on work participation of employees with cancer was performed. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Business Source Premier) were systematically searched. The CASP checklist was used to assess the quality of included studies. Perceived barriers and facilitators were extracted and synthesised to conduct a content analysis. Result Five studies representing the employers’ perspectives and 47 studies representing perspectives of employees with cancer were included. Employees with cancer perceived barriers and facilitators related to support, communication, work environment, discrimination and perception of work ability. Employers perceived barriers and facilitators related to support, communication, RTW policies, knowledge about cancer, balancing interests and roles, and attitudes. Synthesis showed that the employers’ willingness to support can be understood by: their perceptions of the employee with cancer, their goals, and national and organisational policies. The employers’ ability to support is related to their knowledge about cancer and the (availability of) RTW policies. Discussion A large variety of perceived employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of employees with cancer were identified, underlining the importance and complexity of the role of the employer. The perceived barriers and facilitators were understood to be related to both employers’ willingness and ability to support. There is a need for RTW interventions targeting employers, to enhance the sustainable work participation of employees with cancer

Introduction Employees with cancer experience difficulties returning to work. Employers play an essential role during return to work (RTW) of employees with cancer, but current RTW interventions pay little attention to the employer. Adequate employer support might be the missing link for successful RTW of employees with cancer. The purpose of this project is therefore to optimise RTW of employees with cancer, by supporting employers. Methods An online intervention for employers was developed using the Intervention Mapping approach. Firstly, a needs assessment was conducted; the role and support needs of employers during RTW of employees with cancer were assessed (interviews with 30 Dutch employers) and employer-related perceived barriers and facilitators for work participation of employees with cancer were identified (systematic review) and prioritised (delphi study). Secondly, the objectives of the intervention were specified, practical strategies were chosen, based on interviews with e-health experts, and the online intervention was developed. Result RTW of employees with cancer requires tailored support from the employer and specific employer/employee communication during different phases: disclosure of cancer, absence employee during treatment, RTW planning, actual RTW, no return. The review included five and 47 studies representing the employers’ and employees’ perspectives, respectively. The identified barriers and facilitators were prioritised by 22 employers and 26 employees with cancer. Subsequently, an online toolbox with ‘to-the-point’ and tailored support for employers is developed. Discussion RTW of employees with cancer is a complex trajectory, during which employers play an important role and express a need for support. By involving employers and experts during its development, the online toolbox is expected to fit employers’ needs, be feasible in practice and contribute to a successful RTW of employees with cancer. The online toolbox will be evaluated on feasibility in a pilot-RCT with ±65 pairs of employer/employee with cancer.

To assess the responsiveness and interpretability of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). A cohort study was conducted in which 130 (self-)employed cancer survivors completed the QWLQ-CS at baseline and 107 at follow-up and six single-item external anchors to measure change. Cancer survivors were diagnosed between 3 months and 10 years previously. To measure responsiveness we assessed the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of Receiver Operation Characteristic (ROC). To assess interpretability we compared Minimal Important Change (MIC) to Smallest Detectable Change at group level (SDC_group). The MIC was based on the mean change method and the SDC on the measurement error. We found sufficient responsiveness for improvement with AUC of 0.72 and sufficient interpretability with MIC (3.9) exceeding the SDC_group (2.8). Accordingly, we found sufficient responsiveness for deterioration with AUC of 0.27 and sufficient interpretability with MIC (-7.4) exceeding SDC_group (2.8). An improvement of 3.9 on the QWLQ-CS is meaningful to cancer survivors as is a deterioration of -7.4, both of which can be reliably measured at group level. The QWLQ-CS can be used as a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) of an intervention in research or practice at group level.