Coronel Insitute of Occupational Health/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, Amsterdam 1100 DE, The Netherlands.
Occup Environ Med. 2010 Sep;67(9):639-48. doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.050070.
The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the content of interventions focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer. Furthermore, the effect of the interventions on return to work was assessed in studies reporting return to work.
A literature search was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles that described a work-directed intervention focusing on return to work, employment status, or work retention in patients with cancer were included. The content of the work-directed part of the interventions was assessed based on two criteria for content analysis: 1. does the setting fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care? 2. Does the intervention target work ability and physical workload? For studies reporting return-to-work outcomes, the return-to-work rates were assessed. For studies that used a control group the ORs and the 95% CIs were calculated.
Twenty-three articles describing 19 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported return-to-work outcomes of which four used a control group. Only three interventions aimed primarily at enhancing return to work or employment status. The most frequently reported work-directed components were encouragement, education or advice about work or work-related subjects (68%), vocational or occupational training (21%), or work accommodations (11%). One intervention fit the shared care model of cancer survivor care and five interventions enhanced work ability or decreased physical workload. The rate of return to work ranged from 37% to 89%. In one of the four controlled studies the intervention increased return to work significantly and in the other studies the results were insignificant.
Only few interventions are primarily aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with cancer and most do not fit the shared care model involving integrated cancer care. Future studies should be developed with well-structured work-directed components that should be evaluated in randomised controlled trials.
本研究旨在回顾聚焦于癌症患者重返工作岗位、就业状况或工作保留的干预措施内容的文献。此外，对报告重返工作岗位的研究评估了干预措施对重返工作岗位的影响。
使用 MEDLINE、PsycINFO、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 数据库进行文献检索。纳入描述聚焦于癌症患者重返工作岗位、就业状况或工作保留的工作导向干预措施的文章。根据内容分析的两个标准评估工作导向干预措施的工作部分的内容：1. 环境是否符合癌症幸存者护理的共同护理模式？2. 干预措施是否针对工作能力和体力工作量？对于报告重返工作岗位结果的研究，评估了重返工作岗位的比率。对于使用对照组的研究，计算了 OR 和 95%CI。
描述 19 项干预措施的 23 篇文章符合纳入标准。有 7 项研究报告了重返工作岗位的结果，其中 4 项使用了对照组。只有 3 项干预措施主要旨在提高重返工作岗位或就业状况。报告最多的工作导向部分是鼓励、教育或提供与工作或工作相关主题的建议（68%）、职业或职业培训（21%）或工作调整（11%）。一项干预措施符合癌症幸存者护理的共同护理模式，五项干预措施增强了工作能力或降低了体力工作量。重返工作岗位的比率从 37%到 89%不等。在四项对照研究中的一项中，干预措施显著增加了重返工作岗位的比率，而在其他研究中结果不显著。
只有少数干预措施主要旨在提高癌症患者的重返工作岗位率，且大多数不符合涉及综合癌症护理的共同护理模式。未来的研究应制定具有良好结构的工作导向组成部分，并在随机对照试验中进行评估。
