↓ Skip to main content

The challenge of return to work in workers with cancer: employer priorities despite variation in social policies related to work and health

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Survivorship, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
The challenge of return to work in workers with cancer: employer priorities despite variation in social policies related to work and health
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, November 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11764-019-00829-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angelique de Rijk, Ziv Amir, Miri Cohen, Tomislav Furlan, Lode Godderis, Bojana Knezevic, Massimo Miglioretti, Fehmidah Munir, Adela Elena Popa, Maria Sedlakova, Steffen Torp, Dana Yagil, Sietske Tamminga, Angela de Boer

Abstract

© 2019, The Author(s). Purpose: This study explored employer’s perspectives on (1) their experience of good practice related to workers diagnosed with cancer and their return to work (RTW), and (2) their perceived needs necessary to achieve good practice as reported by employers from nine separate countries. Methods: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were held in eight European countries and Israel with two to three employers typically including HR managers or line managers from both profit and non-profit organisations of different sizes and sectors. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory/thematic analysis approach was completed. Results: Employers’ experience with RTW assistance for workers with cancer appears to be a dynamic process. Results indicate that good practice includes six phases: (1) reacting to disclosure, (2) collecting information, (3) decision-making related to initial actions, (4) remaining in touch, (5) decision-making on RTW, and (6) follow-up. The exact details of the process are shaped by country, employer type, and worker characteristics; however, there was consistency related to the need for (1) structured procedures, (2) collaboration, (3) communication skills training, (4) information on cancer, and (5) financial resources for realizing RTW support measures. Conclusions: Notwithstanding variations at country, employer, and worker levels, the employers from all nine countries reported that good practice regarding RTW assistance in workers with a history of cancer consists of the six phases above. Employers indicate that they would benefit from shared collaboration and resources that support good practice for this human resource matter. Implications for cancer survivors: Further research and development based on the six phases of employer support as a framework for a tool or strategy to support workers with a history of cancer across countries and organisations is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 38 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 39 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2023.
All research outputs
#6,760,186
of 24,911,633 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#479
of 1,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,077
of 469,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#14
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,911,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 469,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.