Is a tailored work-related support intervention feasible in everyday clinical practice? The experience of healthcare professionals and patients with cancer.
AnneClaire G N M Zaman, Kristien M A J Tytgat, Jean H G Klinkenbijl and 2 others
PMID 32831217WHAT IT FOUND
Healthcare professionals and patients found early work-related support feasible and useful, but consultation time was a major barrier.
Oncology nurses felt underprepared for complex work issues, while occupational physicians lacked funding and integration into routine care.
Key findings
01Both patients and healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with the tailored work-related support, viewing it as appropriate and valuable.
02A primary barrier to implementation was insufficient consultation time, with 30-minute slots deemed too short for occupational physicians to build rapport and address complex issues.
03Oncology nurses reported difficulty supporting patients with severe work-related problems due to a lack of specific training in return-to-work legislation and occupational health.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not assess efficacy; it only evaluated feasibility and experiences. No patients were referred to the multidisciplinary support type, so its practicality is unknown. The sample size was small (23 patients, 18 professionals). The intervention was delivered within a research context, which may have artificially supported logistics and time availability compared to routine clinical practice. Selection bias is possible, as only those who consented to follow-up were invited.
Declared interests
None of the authors have any conflict of interest to report.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the positive feasibility findings as evidence that this intervention improves return-to-work outcomes. The study measured satisfaction and practicality, not efficacy, and the lack of patients in the highest-intensity group means the full spectrum of support was not tested.