Abstract
Background The diagnosis of breast cancer increasingly implies a return-to-work (RTW) challenge as survival rates increase. RTW is regarded as a multidisciplinary process and a country’s legislation affects the degree of involvement of the different stakeholders. We elucidated on bottlenecks and contributing factors and the relationship between policy and practice regarding RTW of employees with breast cancer as perceived by Belgian (Flemish) stakeholders. Methods Three multidisciplinary groups (n = 7, n = 9, n = 10) were interviewed during a breast cancer conference. Treating physicians (n = 4), employers (n = 6), social security physicians (n = 3), occupational physicians (n = 4), survivors (n = 5) and representatives of patient associations (n = 4) were included. The major theme was the legal and practical role in the RTW process as experienced by the participants. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to analyse stakeholders’ experiences of women’s RTW after breast cancer. Results The stakeholders reported different perspectives. Employees focus on treatment and feel ill-informed about the RTW options. Treating physicians do not feel competent about advising on work-related questions. Employers have to balance the interests of both the business and the employee. Social security physicians assess ability to work and facilitate RTW options. Occupational physicians see opportunities but the legislation does not support their involvement. Stakeholders expressed the need for coordination and reported finding ways to accommodate the employee’s needs by being flexible with the legislation to support the RTW process. Conclusions Two factors might hamper RTW for breast cancer patients: the varying stakeholder perspectives and Belgian legislation which emphasizes the patient or disability role, but not the employee role. When stakeholders are motivated they find ways to support RTW, but improved legislation could support the necessary coordination of RTW for these patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vingård E, Alexanderson K, Norlund A. Consequences of being at sick leave. Scand J Public Health. 2004;563:207–15.
Van Oostrom SH, Driessen MT, De Vet HC, Franche RL, Schonstein E, Loisel P, et al. Workplace interventions of preventing work disability. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;15:2. CD006955.
Tiedtke C, De Rijk A, de Casterlé BD, Christiaens MR, Donceel P. Experiences and concerns about returning to work for women breast cancer survivors: a literature review. Psycho-Oncology. 2010;19:677–83.
Tiedtke C, de Casterlé BD, De Rijk A, Christiaens MR, Donceel P. Breast cancer treatment and work disability: patient perspectives. The Breast. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.06.002.
Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:525–42.
Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, Van Poppel MN. Return to work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4). doi:10.1007/s10926-005-8033-0.
Mortelmans AK, Donceel P, Lahaye D. Disability management through positive intervention in stakeholders’ information asymmetry. A pilot study. Occup Med. 2006;56:129–36. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqj014.
Gobelet C, Luthi F, Al-khodairy AT, Chamberlain MA. Vocational rehabilitation: a multidisciplinary intervention. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1405–10.
Shaw W, Hong Q, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:2–15. doi:10.1007/s10926-007-9115-y.
Maiwald K, De Rijk A, Guzman J, Schonstein E, Yassi, A. Evaluation of a workplace disability prevention intervention in Canada: examining differing perceptions of stakeholders. J Occup Rehabil. 2010. doi:10.1007/s10926-010-9267-z.
Van Raak A, De Rijk A, Morsa J. Applying new institutional theory: the case of collaboration to promote work resumption after sickness absence. Work Employ Soc. 2005;19:141.
De Rijk A, Van Raak A, Van der Made J. A new theoretical model for cooperation in public health settings: the RDIC model. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:1103.
Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers, a synthesis of findings across OECD countries. OECD report. France; 2010.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
Brunarski D, Shaw L, Doupe L. Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return to work care. Work. 2008;30:329–36.
Larsson A, Gard G. How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers’ perspective. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13:169–81.
MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche R-L, Irvin E. The workplace based return to work literature review group. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:257–69.
MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Kosny A, Chambers L. A deliberation on ‘hurt versus harm’ logic in early-return-to-work policy. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2007;5:75–96.
Williams R, Westmorland M. Perspectives on workplace disability management: a review of the literature. Work. 2002;19:87–93.
Rosenthal D, Hursh N, Lui J, Isom R, Sasson J. A survey of current disability management practice: emerging trends and implications for certification. RCB. 2007;50:76–86.
Pransky GS, Shaw WS, Franche RL, Clarke A. Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers—current models and opportunities for improvement. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:625–34.
Roelen CA, Koopmans PC, van Rhenen W, Groothof JW, van der Klink JJ, Bültmann U. Trends in return to work of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128:237–42.
Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Ekberg K. Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:311–21.
Høgelund J. Reintegration: public or private responsibility? Consequences of Dutch and Danish policies toward work-disabled persons. Int J Health Serv. 2002;32:467–87.
Anema JR, Schellart AJ, Cassidy JD, Loisel P, Veerman TJ, van der Beek AJ. Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:419–26.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the Flemish Cancer League (VLK). The Province of Limburg and the Limburgse Kanker Samenwerking (LIKAS) participated in organizing the breast cancer conference.
Conflict of interest
The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tiedtke, C., Donceel, P., Knops, L. et al. Supporting Return-to-Work in the Face of Legislation: Stakeholders’ Experiences with Return-to-Work After Breast Cancer in Belgium. J Occup Rehabil 22, 241–251 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9342-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9342-0