Validating the Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation in a Population of Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE

The Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation (CS-VR), a checklist based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), captures the work functioning of individuals requiring VR. By listening to cancer survivors' experiences and stakeholders' perspectives, the CS-VR-Onco of 85 ICF-based categories was obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the CS-VR-Onco by measuring this tool's ability to detect differences among cancer survivors in terms of perceived return to work (RTW)-related difficulties.

METHODS

A sample of 300 working-age individuals with a first diagnosis of cancer was selected through the local Cancer Registry. Of these 300, those employed individuals who had returned to work were deemed eligible. Through a guided interview, participants reported and described their perceived RTW-related difficulties using the terminology of the CS-VR-Onco. Frequencies and means were used to compare the results of (a) cancer survivors who reported having had difficulties with those who had not, and (b) cancer survivors who had undergone chemotherapy (CT) with those who had not.

RESULTS

Of the 104 respondents, 35 cancer survivors (Group 1) reported having had RTW-related difficulties and CS-VR-Onco-described problems, while 54 reported no difficulties but did highlight some problems (Group 2), and 15 reported neither difficulties nor problems (Group 3). The categories of the CS-VR-Onco that were prioritized were similar across groups, but Group 1 had higher frequencies than did Group 2 + 3 in 69 categories out of 85. In the second comparison, 40 cancer survivors who had undergone CT had higher frequencies than did 64 cancer survivors who had not undergone CT, but this trend was not applicable to 23 categories of the CS-VR-Onco. Seven categories were not reported as problems by all participants.

CONCLUSION

The CS-VR-Onco identified more problems in cancer survivors who reported RTW-related difficulties and differences between cancer survivors who had undergone CT and those who had not. These results contribute to assessing the preliminary validity of the tool.