Identification of actions to be taken by managers to facilitate the return to work of cancer survivors: Consensus between managers and cancer survivors.
Cancer survivors
Employer
Expert consensus
Managers
Return to work
TRIAGE method
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 10 2022
12 10 2022
Historique:
received:
22
03
2022
accepted:
28
09
2022
entrez:
12
10
2022
pubmed:
13
10
2022
medline:
15
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Managers are considered to be main stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. However, the perspectives of cancer survivors and managers differ on what managerial actions should be taken during the RTW of cancer survivors. This difference might put effective collaboration and successful RTW at risk. Therefore, this study aims to reach consensus among managers and cancer survivors on the managerial actions to be taken during the four different RTW phases of cancer survivors (i.e., Disclosure, Treatment, RTW plan, Actual RTW). The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) was implemented with managers and cancer survivors (hereafter referred to as "experts"). An initial list of 24 actions was derived from a previous study. Firstly, for each action, fifteen experts were asked to indicate individually how important this action is per RTW phase (Likert scale from 1 - "Not important at all" to 6 - "Very important"). Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% (i.e., ≥ twelve experts) of the experts rated that action ≥5. Secondly, for each phase of the RTW process, the 15 actions with the highest percentage were discussed with eight experts during the collective consultation, except for the actions that already reached consensus. After discussion, the experts voted whether each action was important ("yes" / "no") and consensus required ≥ 87.5% (i.e., ≥ seven experts) of the experts to consider an action as important. Twenty-five managerial actions were finally retained for at least one of the RTW phases, e.g., Disclosure: "respect privacy" and "radiate a positive attitude", Treatment: "show appreciation" and "allow sufficient sick leave", RTW Plan: "tailor" and "communicate", and Actual RTW: "support practically" and "balance interest". Cancer survivors and managers reached consensus on the importance of 25 managerial actions, distributed into each phase of the RTW process. These actions should be considered an interplay of managerial actions by different stakeholders on the part of the employer (e.g., direct supervisor, HR-manager), and should be a responsibility that is shared by these stakeholders. The collective implementation of these actions within the company will help cancer survivors feel fully supported.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Managers are considered to be main stakeholders in the return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. However, the perspectives of cancer survivors and managers differ on what managerial actions should be taken during the RTW of cancer survivors. This difference might put effective collaboration and successful RTW at risk. Therefore, this study aims to reach consensus among managers and cancer survivors on the managerial actions to be taken during the four different RTW phases of cancer survivors (i.e., Disclosure, Treatment, RTW plan, Actual RTW).
METHODS
The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) was implemented with managers and cancer survivors (hereafter referred to as "experts"). An initial list of 24 actions was derived from a previous study. Firstly, for each action, fifteen experts were asked to indicate individually how important this action is per RTW phase (Likert scale from 1 - "Not important at all" to 6 - "Very important"). Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% (i.e., ≥ twelve experts) of the experts rated that action ≥5. Secondly, for each phase of the RTW process, the 15 actions with the highest percentage were discussed with eight experts during the collective consultation, except for the actions that already reached consensus. After discussion, the experts voted whether each action was important ("yes" / "no") and consensus required ≥ 87.5% (i.e., ≥ seven experts) of the experts to consider an action as important.
RESULTS
Twenty-five managerial actions were finally retained for at least one of the RTW phases, e.g., Disclosure: "respect privacy" and "radiate a positive attitude", Treatment: "show appreciation" and "allow sufficient sick leave", RTW Plan: "tailor" and "communicate", and Actual RTW: "support practically" and "balance interest".
CONCLUSION
Cancer survivors and managers reached consensus on the importance of 25 managerial actions, distributed into each phase of the RTW process. These actions should be considered an interplay of managerial actions by different stakeholders on the part of the employer (e.g., direct supervisor, HR-manager), and should be a responsibility that is shared by these stakeholders. The collective implementation of these actions within the company will help cancer survivors feel fully supported.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36224592
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14271-w
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-14271-w
pmc: PMC9555691
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1905Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Psychooncology. 2005 Nov;14(11):992-1004
pubmed: 15744780
J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Jun;22(2):241-51
pubmed: 22105670
J Cancer Surviv. 2022 Jun;16(3):590-603
pubmed: 33950477
Psychooncology. 2013 Dec;22(12):2755-62
pubmed: 23824596
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012 Mar;38(2):144-54
pubmed: 21986836
Psychooncology. 2013 Jun;22(6):1208-19
pubmed: 22888070
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 20;379(25):2438-2450
pubmed: 30575480
J Cancer Surviv. 2020 Apr;14(2):188-199
pubmed: 31758518
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Jun;29(2):406-422
pubmed: 30027426
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):543-56
pubmed: 16254754
J Occup Rehabil. 2020 Dec;30(4):635-645
pubmed: 32246294
J Occup Rehabil. 2011 Mar;21 Suppl 1:S77-85
pubmed: 21365301
Psychooncology. 2018 Mar;27(3):725-733
pubmed: 28753741
J Occup Rehabil. 2022 Jun;32(2):225-240
pubmed: 35723804
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Oct;39(21):2164-2172
pubmed: 27596990
Psychooncology. 2019 Dec;28(12):2429-2431
pubmed: 31595616
J Cancer Surviv. 2014 Dec;8(4):657-70
pubmed: 24993807
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):507-24
pubmed: 16254752
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Dec;25(4):752-62
pubmed: 25916307
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Sep;26(9):2983-2994
pubmed: 29845421
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
J Occup Rehabil. 2020 Mar;30(1):59-71
pubmed: 31297654
Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Sep;41(18):2151-2158
pubmed: 29631449
J Occup Rehabil. 2010 Dec;20(4):435-42
pubmed: 19890619
Front Public Health. 2018 Feb 23;6:35
pubmed: 29527521
J Occup Rehabil. 2016 Dec;26(4):417-433
pubmed: 27614465
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Oct;11(5):562-577
pubmed: 28710544
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Jul;12(3):190-7
pubmed: 18342571
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Sep;29(3):550-559
pubmed: 30467648
Sante Publique. 2015 Jan-Feb;27(1 Suppl):S41-50
pubmed: 26168616
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Feb;18(1):1-2
pubmed: 24485331
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 Mar 1;46(2):177-187
pubmed: 31433060