Skip to main content
PMC home page
Occupational and Environmental Medicine logoLink to Occupational and Environmental Medicine
. 2003 May;60(5):352–357. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.5.352

Return to work of cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study into the quality of rehabilitation by occupational physicians

J Verbeek 1, E Spelten 1, M Kammeijer 1, M Sprangers 1
PMCID: PMC1740540  PMID: 12709521

Abstract

Aims: To describe and assess the quality of rehabilitation of cancer survivors by occupational physicians and to relate the quality of the process of occupational rehabilitation to the outcome of return to work.

Methods: One hundred occupational physicians of a cohort of cancer survivors were interviewed about return to work management. Quality of rehabilitation was assessed by means of four indicators that related to performance in knowledge of cancer and treatment, continuity of care, patients complaints, and relations at work. The cohort of patients was prospectively followed for 12 months to assess time to return to work and rate of return to work. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with care was also assessed. The relation between performance and these outcome measures was studied in a multivariate analysis, taking into account the influence of other work and disease related factors that could potentially predict return to work.

Results: For knowledge of cancer and treatment, only 3% had optimal performance because occupational physicians did not communicate with treating physicians. For continuity of care, patient complaints, and relations at work, performance was optimal for 55%, 78%, and 60% of the physicians respectively. After adjustment for other prognostic factors, overall physician's performance (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8) and continuity of care (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) were related to the return to work of patients. Overall optimal performance was also related to a small but significant higher level of satisfaction with care, both for patients and physicians.

Conclusion: Quality of occupational rehabilitation of cancer survivors can be improved substantially, especially with regard to communication between physicians and continuity of care. There is a need for the development of more effective rehabilitation procedures which should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Black N. Developing high quality clinical databases. BMJ. 1997 Aug 16;315(7105):381–382. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7105.381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Broadbent D. E., Cooper P. F., FitzGerald P., Parkes K. R. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21(Pt 1):1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Buijs P., van Amstel R., van Dijk F. Dutch occupational physicians and general practitioners wish to improve cooperation. Occup Environ Med. 1999 Oct;56(10):709–713. doi: 10.1136/oem.56.10.709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buysse D. J., Reynolds C. F., 3rd, Monk T. H., Berman S. R., Kupfer D. J. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193–213. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cole R. P., Scialla S. J., Bednarz L. Functional recovery in cancer rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 May;81(5):623–627. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90046-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Disler P. B., Pallant J. F. Vocational rehabilitation. BMJ. 2001 Jul 21;323(7305):121–123. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Guthrie B., Wyke S. Does continuity in general practice really matter? BMJ. 2000 Sep 23;321(7263):734–736. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7263.734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;13(6):475–480. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Maunsell E., Brisson C., Dubois L., Lauzier S., Fraser A. Work problems after breast cancer: an exploratory qualitative study. Psychooncology. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):467–473. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1611(199911/12)8:6<467::aid-pon400>3.0.co;2-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rubin H. R., Pronovost P., Diette G. B. From a process of care to a measure: the development and testing of a quality indicator. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;13(6):489–496. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sharp D. Trends in cancer survival in England and Wales. Lancet. 1999 Apr 24;353(9162):1437–1438. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)03340-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Smets E. M., Garssen B., Bonke B., De Haes J. C. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995 Apr;39(3):315–325. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Spelten Evelien R., Sprangers Mirjam A. G., Verbeek Jos H. A. M. Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: a literature review. Psychooncology. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):124–131. doi: 10.1002/pon.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Verbeek J., van Dijk F., Räsänen K., Piirainen H., Kankaanpä E., Hulshof C. Consumer satisfaction with occupational health services: should it be measured? Occup Environ Med. 2001 Apr;58(4):272–278. doi: 10.1136/oem.58.4.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Waddell G., Burton A. K. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work: evidence review. Occup Med (Lond) 2001 Mar;51(2):124–135. doi: 10.1093/occmed/51.2.124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. de Haes J. C., van Knippenberg F. C., Neijt J. P. Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer. 1990 Dec;62(6):1034–1038. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. van der Weide W. E., Verbeek J. H., van Dijk F. J., Hulshof C. T. Development and evaluation of a quality assessment instrument for occupational physicians. Occup Environ Med. 1998 Jun;55(6):375–382. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.6.375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. van der Weide W. E., Verbeek J. H., van Dijk F. J. Relation between indicators for quality of occupational rehabilitation of employees with low back pain. Occup Environ Med. 1999 Jul;56(7):488–493. doi: 10.1136/oem.56.7.488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. van der Wouden J. C., Greaves-Otte J. G., Greaves J., Kruyt P. M., van Leeuwen O., van der Does E. Occupational reintegration of long-term cancer survivors. J Occup Med. 1992 Nov;34(11):1084–1089. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199211000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES