Scholarlink

Purpose <p>It was examined whether employment among breast cancer survivors was lower than in the general population 4 to 6&#xa0;years after surgery. We also examined whether disease severity, post-surgical treatment, social, and workplace characteristics have effects on employment as primary outcome, and whether the distance from surgery to observation may determine employment.</p> Methods <p>We performed a multicentric observational study with four survey waves. Data were collected based on mailed surveys and patient records. Patients were up to 63&#xa0;years old at entry with TNM-tumour stages T0 to TIV. Comparisons with the general population were performed by drawing controls from the German Socio-Economic Panel.</p> Results <p><i>N</i> = 372 breast cancer survivors participated in all surveys (= 82.2% of the initial sample). Their rate of occupationally active women was lower than in the general population (OR<sub>patients</sub> = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.42–0.84; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Among patients, tumour stage had no effects on employment 12&#xa0;months after surgery; 4–6&#xa0;years later, this was the case only among patients with the most unfavourable tumour stage (OR = 0.16; <i>p</i> = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.04–0.58). Antihormone therapy was unrelated with employment (OR = 0.80; <i>p</i> = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.54–1.19); inpatient rehabilitation was negatively associated at 12&#xa0;months after surgery (OR = 0.47; <i>p</i> = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.25–0.89) and unrelated at the last survey wave (OR = 0.95; <i>p</i> = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.55–1.64). Compared with the lowest level of occupational autonomy, it was unrelated with employment 12&#xa0;months after surgery (OR = 0.79; <i>p</i> = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.18–4.41), but for the highest level of autonomy, it had significant effects 4 to 6&#xa0;years later (OR = 4.56; <i>p</i> = 0.04; 95% CI = 1.10–18.81). Effort-reward imbalance as a continuously scaled indicator of pre-surgery occupational distress was significantly associated with return to work 12&#xa0;months after surgery (OR = 0.13; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01; 95% CI = 0.06–0.31), but it had no effect at the last survey wave (OR = 0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.28–1.50). One year after surgery, education at higher levels had no significant effects on return to work (OR = 1.30; <i>p</i> = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.56–3.00 for the highest level compared with the lowest one), only at the last measurement marked differences by education emerged (OR = 2.23; <i>p</i> = 0.03; 95% CI = 1.08–4.63).</p> Conclusion <p>Temporal distance between surgery and survey wave determines whether potentially influencing factors have effects. Disease severity and post-surgical treatment were unrelated to employment. Whether work-related and socio-demographic factors are determining employment depends on the date of measurement.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Return to work or leaving work? Differences of return to work between breast cancer patients and the general population and determinants of return to work

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月22日

查看全文
  • Siegfried Geyer,
  • Stefanie Sperlich,
  • Eranda Sahiti,
  • Dorothee Noeres

摘要

Purpose

It was examined whether employment among breast cancer survivors was lower than in the general population 4 to 6 years after surgery. We also examined whether disease severity, post-surgical treatment, social, and workplace characteristics have effects on employment as primary outcome, and whether the distance from surgery to observation may determine employment.

Methods

We performed a multicentric observational study with four survey waves. Data were collected based on mailed surveys and patient records. Patients were up to 63 years old at entry with TNM-tumour stages T0 to TIV. Comparisons with the general population were performed by drawing controls from the German Socio-Economic Panel.

Results

N = 372 breast cancer survivors participated in all surveys (= 82.2% of the initial sample). Their rate of occupationally active women was lower than in the general population (ORpatients = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.42–0.84; p < 0.01). Among patients, tumour stage had no effects on employment 12 months after surgery; 4–6 years later, this was the case only among patients with the most unfavourable tumour stage (OR = 0.16; p = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.04–0.58). Antihormone therapy was unrelated with employment (OR = 0.80; p = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.54–1.19); inpatient rehabilitation was negatively associated at 12 months after surgery (OR = 0.47; p = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.25–0.89) and unrelated at the last survey wave (OR = 0.95; p = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.55–1.64). Compared with the lowest level of occupational autonomy, it was unrelated with employment 12 months after surgery (OR = 0.79; p = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.18–4.41), but for the highest level of autonomy, it had significant effects 4 to 6 years later (OR = 4.56; p = 0.04; 95% CI = 1.10–18.81). Effort-reward imbalance as a continuously scaled indicator of pre-surgery occupational distress was significantly associated with return to work 12 months after surgery (OR = 0.13; p < 0.01; 95% CI = 0.06–0.31), but it had no effect at the last survey wave (OR = 0.64; p = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.28–1.50). One year after surgery, education at higher levels had no significant effects on return to work (OR = 1.30; p = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.56–3.00 for the highest level compared with the lowest one), only at the last measurement marked differences by education emerged (OR = 2.23; p = 0.03; 95% CI = 1.08–4.63).

Conclusion

Temporal distance between surgery and survey wave determines whether potentially influencing factors have effects. Disease severity and post-surgical treatment were unrelated to employment. Whether work-related and socio-demographic factors are determining employment depends on the date of measurement.