↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer survivors: time for action—rapid review and expert consultation

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers and opportunities for return-to-work of cancer survivors: time for action—rapid review and expert consultation
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0210-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Régine Kiasuwa Mbengi, Renée Otter, Katrien Mortelmans, Marc Arbyn, Herman Van Oyen, Catherine Bouland, Christophe de Brouwer

Abstract

The spread of early detection and the improvement of cancer treatment have led to an increased prevalence of cancer survivors, including in the working age population. Return-to-work (RTW) of cancer survivors has become a key issue for national cancer control plans. This study aims (1) to identify the factors that have an impact on RTW of cancer survivors and to draw a risk profile supporting health professionals in the screening of those at risk for barriers of RTW and (2) to sharpen these results with input from health, social security and academic Belgian experts and to provide evidence-based recommendations that facilitate RTW of cancer survivors. A rapid review was conducted, based on the methodology elaborated by The Knowledge to Action Research Programme and researchers from the University of York, including a quality assessment of retained studies. Next, the Delphi method was used to organize a consultation with experts in order to discuss, validate and complement the results. Forty-three out of 1860 studies were included. We identified nine risk factors grouped into four categories: socio-demographic, disease and treatment-related, work-related, and personal and subjective factors. Experts suggested dividing them into two even groups: factors which are modifiable and those which are not. The awareness of health professionals regarding the identified factors, a better assessment of work capacities, clarity on the rights and obligations of employers and workers alike, and the setup of a positive discrimination employment policy for cancer survivors were acknowledged as factors facilitating RTW of cancer survivors. The awareness of health professionals regarding barriers of RTW may improve the early identification of cancer survivors at risk for prolonged time to RTW and may allow early supportive intervention. Social and employment policies should be better tailored to support both employers and cancer survivors in the RTW process, providing incentives to positively discriminate cancer survivors on prolonged sick leave.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Psychology 9 6%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,733,472
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#718
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,712
of 298,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 298,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 62% of its contemporaries.