Dataset Information

A randomised feasibility trial of an employer-based intervention for enhancing successful return to work of cancer survivors (MiLES intervention).

ABSTRACT:

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 < 2 years earlier, currently in paid employment, and sick-listed < 1 year. Participants were randomised to an intervention group, with their employer receiving the MiLES intervention, or to a waiting-list control group (2:1). Feasibility of a future definitive RCT was determined on the basis of predefined criteria related to method and protocol-related uncertainties (e.g. reach, retention, appropriateness). The primary effect measure (i.e. successful RTW) and secondary effect measures (e.g. quality of working life) were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months thereafter.

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 ).

SUBMITTER: Greidanus MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8293550 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmployers express a need for support to facilitate the return to work (RTW) process of employees with cancer. We have developed the MiLES intervention, an online toolbox targeting employers during the RTW of employees with cancer. To evaluate the MiLES intervention, we propose the design of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of this pilot is to determine whether a future RCT to study the effectiveness of this intervention on successful RTW of employees with cancer is feasible. Secondary aims are to obtain preliminary results on the effectiveness of the intervention and to determine the sample size needed in a future definitive RCT.MethodsA pilot RCT with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Using medical specialists at Dutch hospitals, we aim to enrol 90 participants diagnosed with cancer (<2?years earlier) aged 18-63?years who are in paid employment with an employer and who are currently sick-listed or partly sick-listed for <1?year. Participants randomised to the intervention group will be asked to inform their employer about the online toolbox supporting employers during the RTW process of employees with cancer. Participants in the control group will receive 'care as usual' from their employer. All measures will be assessed at the level of the employee using questionnaires at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. The feasibility of a future RCT will be determined using criteria concerning method-related uncertainties and acceptability of the study protocol. The primary effect measure will be successful RTW (that is, RTW perceived as being successful by the cancer survivor themselves). This effect measure will be used to perform the sample size calculation for a future definitive RCT.DiscussionThe design is proposed to determine the feasibility to study the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention targeting employers on the successful RTW of employees diagnosed with cancer. This pilot RCT can increase the probability of a successful future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the intervention and potentially obviate the need to carry out an unfeasible and resource-intensive study.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register (NTR): NL6758, NTR7627. Registered on 30 October 2018.

Project description:BackgroundThe mortality rate from breast cancer has been declining for many years, and the population size of working-age survivors is steadily increasing. However, the recurrent side effects of cancer and its treatment can result in multiple disabilities and disruptions to day-to-day life, including work disruptions. Despite the existing knowledge of best practices regarding return to work (RTW) for breast cancer survivors, only a few interdisciplinary interventions have been developed to address the individualized needs and multiple challenges of breast cancer survivors, health care professionals, and employer and insurer representatives. Thus, it seems appropriate to develop RTW interventions collaboratively by using a co-design approach with these specific stakeholders.ObjectiveThis paper presents a protocol for developing and testing an innovative, interdisciplinary pilot intervention based on a co-design approach to better support RTW and job retention after breast cancer treatment.MethodsFirst, a participatory research approach will be used to develop the intervention in a co-design workshop with 12 to 20 participants, including people affected by cancer, employer and insurer representatives, and health care professionals. Next, a pilot intervention will be tested in a primary care setting with 6 to 8 women affected by breast cancer. The acceptability and feasibility of the pilot intervention will be pretested through semistructured interviews with participants, health care professionals, and involved patient partners. The transcribed data will undergo an iterative content analysis.ResultsThe first phase of the project-the co-design workshop-was completed in June 2021. The pilot test of the intervention will begin in spring 2022. The results from the test will be available in late 2022.ConclusionsThe project will offer novel data regarding the use of the co-design approach for the development of innovative, co-designed interventions. In addition, it will be possible to document the acceptability and feasibility of the pilot intervention with a primary care team. Depending on the results obtained, the intervention could be implemented on a larger scale.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/37009.

Project description:ObjectivesEmployment following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically led workbook intervention designed to support patients with cancer returning to work.DesignParallel-group randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews.SettingOncology clinics within four English National Health Service Trusts.ParticipantsPatients who had received a diagnosis of breast, gynaecological, prostate or colorectal cancer and who had been receiving treatment for a minimum of two weeks.InterventionA self-guided WorkPlan workbook designed to support patients with cancer to return to work with fortnightly telephone support calls to discuss progress. The control group received treatment as usual and was offered the workbook at the end of their 12-month follow-up.Outcome measuresWe assessed aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, data collection, attrition, feasibility of the methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe recruitment rate of eligible patients was 44%; 68 participants consented and 58 (85%) completed baseline measures. Randomisation procedures were acceptable, data collection methods (including cost-effectiveness data) were feasible and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Retention rates at 6-month and 12-month follow-up were 72% and 69%, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, 30% of the usual care group had returned to full-time or part-time work (including phased return to work) compared with 43% of the intervention group. At 12 months, the percentages were 47% (usual care) and 68% (intervention).ConclusionsThe findings confirm the feasibility of a definitive trial, although further consideration needs to be given to increasing the participation rates among men and black and ethnic minority patients diagnosed with cancer.Trial registration numberISRCTN56342476; Pre-results.

Project description:Return to work (RTW) is an important step for breast cancer survivors (BCSs). However, they face many barriers that affect particularly women with low socioeconomic status (SES). Health care, workplace, and insurance actors lack knowledge and collaborate poorly. No intervention to date has proven effective to reduce social disparities in employment after breast cancer. The intervention mapping (IM) protocol is being used in France to develop, implement, and evaluate an intervention to facilitate and sustain RTW after breast cancer [FAciliter et Soutenir le retour au TRAvail après un Cancer du Sein (FASTRACS) project]. The research question of this study was to elicit the needs for RTW after breast cancer from various stakeholders' point of view. The aim of this study was to describe the process and the preliminary results of the needs assessment of the FASTRACS project. Different methods were followed to (a) establish and work with a planning group and (b) conduct a needs assessment to create a logic model of the problem. A planning group was organized to gather the stakeholders with the research team. A review of the literature and indicators was conducted to identify the magnitude of the problem and the factors influencing RTW. A qualitative inquiry was conducted with 12 focus groups and 48 individual semi-structured interviews to explore the needs and experience of the stakeholders. The results of these tasks were the proposition of a charter of partnership to structure the participative process, a review of the scientific evidence and indicators, and the description by the stakeholders of their needs and experience. Many stakeholders disagreed with the concept of "early intervention." They advocated for a better support of BCSs during their RTW, emphasized as a process. Anticipation, intersectoral collaboration, and workplace accommodation were mentioned to fit the needs of the BCS and their environment. A logic model of the problem was elaborated from these data. The ability of the model to consider specific characteristics of women with low SES is discussed, with a view to developing the FASTRACS intervention through the next steps of the IM protocol.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of: (1) ReWork-SCI with regard to adherence and acceptability and (2) a study design for evaluating ReWork-SCI with regard to recruitment, retention and outcome measures.DesignPre-test and post-test, single group, feasibility study.SettingSpinal cord injury (SCI) unit at a regional rehabilitation centre in Sweden.ParticipantsTwo women and five men (n=7). Eligible criteria: (1) sustained traumatic or non-traumatic SCI; (2) completed the first acute care episode in a hospital; (3) between 18 to 65 years of age; (4) assessed by a physician as approachable for participation in the intervention; (5) history of permanent or temporary employment; (6) self-reported desire to return to work; and (7) ability to communicate in English or Swedish.InterventionReWork-SCI is a person-centred intervention for return-to-work (RTW), developed and evaluated using the Medical Research Council's guidelines. ReWork-SCI follows a person-centred, structured and coordinated intervention process led by a coordinator within a SCI rehabilitation team.Outcome measuresThe feasibility of ReWork-SCI and a study design was evaluated using a set of outcome measurement tools, vocational data, logbooks and semi-structured interviews.ResultsAll eligible participants accepted enrolment and follow-up. All participants had a plan for RTW after 3 months and four participants had initiated part-time work or work trial 6 months after commencement of intervention. Adherence and acceptability were overall good. Challenges of the intervention related to the person-centred follow-up, staff shortage and rootedness in the SCI team.ConclusionsReWork-SCI was feasible and can contribute to a systematic design of an individualised plan, facilitate decision-making and build trust in the RTW process after SCI. Core features of the intervention was the systematic structure, use of a person-centred approach and dialogue with the employer. For the effectiveness of ReWork-SCI, modifications and considerations of study design are needed.

Project description:Background:Working in good jobs is associated with good health. High unemployment rates are reported in those disabled with musculoskeletal pain. Supported employment interventions work well for helping people with mental health difficulties to gain and retain employment. With adaptation, these may be useful for people with chronic pain. We aimed to develop and explore the feasibility of delivering such an adapted intervention. Methods:We developed an intervention and recruited unemployed people with chronic pain from NHS pain clinics and employment services. We trained case managers to assess participants and match them to six-week work placements in the Midlands and provide ongoing support to them and their managers. Participants attended a two-day work preparation session prior to placement. Outcome measures included quality of life at baseline, six-?weeks, 14-weeks, and six-months, and return to work at 14-weeks and six-months. We held focus groups or interviews with stakeholders to examine acceptability and experiences of the intervention. Results:We developed an intervention consisting of work preparation sessions, work experience placements, and individualised employment support. We enrolled 31 people; 27 attended work preparation sessions, and 15 attended placements. Four of our participants started jobs during the study period. We are aware of two others starting jobs shortly after cessation of follow-up. We experienced challenges to recruitment in one area where we had many and diverse placement opportunities and good recruitment in another area where we had a smaller range of placement opportunities. All stakeholders found the intervention acceptable, and it was valued by those given a placement. While there was some disappointment among those not placed, this group still valued the work preparation sessions. Conclusions:The developed intervention was acceptable to participants and partners. Trialling the developed intervention could be feasible with attention to three main processes. To ensure advanced availability of a sufficiently wide range of work placements in each area, multiple partners would be needed. Multiple recruitment sites and focus on employment services will yield better recruitment rates than reliance on NHS pain clinics. Maintaining an adequate follow-up response rate will likely require additional approaches with more than the usual effort.

Project description:Background and study aims An increasing number of cancer survivors are of working age. Cancer is also a known cause of people withdrawing early from the labour market and also a prolonged absence from work due to sickness. Cancer survivors in lower socioeconomic groups (for example, people who do lower skilled jobs) and/or suffer from another disease (co-morbidity) are at particular risk of recurrent sickness absence, unemployment or permanent withdrawal from the labour market. Not being able to work to the same ability and unfavourable work conditions can also mean that cancer survivors of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity find returning to work more difficult. Support from supervisors and adjustments that make it possible for the cancer survivor to do their job more easily (work accommodations) may be important in preventing sickness relapses due to the job environment affecting their state of health. It is not known how important occupational rehabilitation during cancer treatment might be in helping cancer survivors return to work and, in particular, how it may help those patients of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity. This study aims to increase the likelihood of cancer survivors returning to work through a programme (intervention) of individual support offered by a job consultant connected to the oncology ward at Aarhus University Hospital. Who can participate? Cancer patients between 18 and 60 years of age who are living in Randers or Silkeborg municipalities in Denmark diagnosed with breast, gastro-intestinal, head and neck, testis, ovarian or cervix cancer and being treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. They must be permanently or temporary employed (with at least 6 months left of their contract) and possibly on sick leave. What does the study involve? Patients that meet the criteria for participating in the trial and living in either Randers or Silkeborg municipalities in Denmark are placed in the intervention group. Patients that meet the criteria but live outside of these municipalities are placed in the control group. Those in the intervention group take part in an early, tailored return to work management programme that supports cancer patients as they are undergoing treatment. Those in the control group are offered the standard sick leave management programme. The return to work rates among cancer survivors in the intervention group is then compared to those in the control group. The effect of the intervention on cancer survivors of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity is also assessed.