Abstract

BackgroundReturning to and continuing work is important to many cancer survivors, but also represents a challenge. We know little about subjective work outcomes and how cancer survivors perceive being returned to work. Therefore, we developed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). Our aim was to pre-test the items of the initial QWLQ-CS on acceptability and comprehensiveness. In addition, item retention was performed by pre-assessing the relevance scores and response distributions of the items in the QWLQ-CS.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted after cancer survivors, who had returned to work, filled in the 102 items of the QWLQ-CS. To improve acceptability and comprehensiveness, the semi-structured interview inquired about items that were annoying, difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. If cancer survivors had difficulty explaining their opinion or emotion about an item, the interviewer used verbal probing technique to investigate the cancer survivor’s underlying thoughts. The cancer survivors’ comments on the items were analysed, and items were revised accordingly. Decisions on item retention regarding the relevance of items and the response distributions were made by means of pre-set decision rules.ResultsThe 19 cancer survivors (53 % male) had a mean age of 51 ± 11 years old. They were diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 with lymphoma, leukaemia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer. Acceptability of the QWLQ-CS was good - none of the items were annoying - but 73 items were considered difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. To improve acceptability, for instance, the authors replaced the phrase ‘disease’ with ‘health situation’ in several items. Consequently, comprehensiveness was improved by the authors rephrasing and adjusting items by adding clarifying words, such as ‘in the work situation’. The pre-assessment of the relevance scores resulted in a sufficient number of cancer survivors indicating the items as relevant to their quality of working life, and no evident indication for uneven response distributions. Therefore, all items were retained.ConclusionsThe 104 items of the preliminary QWLQ-CS were found relevant, acceptable and comprehensible by cancer survivors who have returned to work. The QWLQ-CS is now suitable for larger sample sizes of cancer survivors, which is necessary to test the psychometric properties of this questionnaire.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1440-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Returning to and continuing work is important to many cancer survivors, and represents a challenge

  • To evaluate the quality of working life among working cancer survivors who have returned to work, we developed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS) [19]

  • Study design Cancer survivors who have returned to work filled in the initial QWLQ-CS, and they were later interviewed in a semi-structured manner

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Returning to and continuing work is important to many cancer survivors, and represents a challenge. We know little about subjective work outcomes and how cancer survivors perceive being returned to work. We developed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). As the prevalence of cancer is rising, the number of cancer survivors participating in the labour market is increasing [1]. The increasing retirement age is causing more cancer survivors to face the challenges of having cancer while participating in the labour market [3]. Work is beneficial to cancer survivors it represents challenges. Cancer survivors might experience changes in their employment status [7], or work-related problems when they return to work, such as fatigue, cognitive limitations, impaired work ability, and changes in support [8,9,10]. The objective outcomes of previous studies (e.g. work participation, productivity and work loss) [12,13,14] do not contribute to explaining this subjective outcome

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.