Background
Methods
Design and procedures
Tailored RTW program
Route 1
Route 2
Target population
Measures and data analysis
Components | Definition of the component | Data sources for component evaluation |
---|---|---|
Recruitment | Result of the recruitment procedures for participants | Research logbooks |
Reach | Proportion of eligible participants who started participation in the tailored RTW program. | Research logbooks |
Dosage | Flow diagram of proportion of chosen routes in the RTW program, and calculated adequate dosage of the program for participants. Frequency of chosen themes during coaching and additional referral to physical or psychological rehabilitation care. | Research and intervention logbooks |
Implementation | Composite score of reach and dosage | Scores on reach and dosage |
Satisfaction | Participants’ satisfaction with the content, intensity, and duration of the tailored RTW program, OHC professionals’ satisfaction of the use of the program along usual care; coaches’ and job hunting officers’ satisfaction in working with the program. | Questionnaires for participants, OHC professionals, coaches and job hunting officers |
Experienced Barriers within the tailored RTW program | Summary of barriers in following or executing the RTW program as experienced by participants, coaches and job hunting officers. Reasons for not being referred to RTW. | Research and intervention logbooks, questionnaires, minutes from meetings |
-
Recruitment‘Recruitment’ was defined as the result of all procedures to recruit eligible CSs for participation in the tailored RTW program. At the level of the participants, data regarding response were obtained from the research logbooks and displayed in a participant recruitment diagram. Recruitment was not evaluated at the organizational level (i.e., level of the OHC professionals, coaches and job hunting agencies), as the involvement of these organizations depended on the participant’s route through the intervention program.
-
Reach‘Reach’ was defined as the proportion of the target group that participated in the tailored RTW program. Participation in the program was defined as participating at least in the introductory interview, because this step was crucial as a starting point for each participant’s program. These data were provided by the research and intervention logbooks from the researchers and re-integration coaches.
-
Dosage‘Dosage’ was defined as the proportion of participants who started the program, who received an adequate dose of the tailored RTW program. Adequate dose was defined as having received a job offer through the services of the job hunting agency during the program. Participants who did not meet with the job hunting agency, because they had already found a job or decided to found their own company during the “preparation for RTW” part of the program, were also considered to have received an adequate dose.Further, the number of times each step in the RTW program was delivered, was described. Also, the mean overall duration of the RTW program, and range of duration between participants, was calculated. Additionally, it was reported if, and which, themes were discussed in the coaching sessions of the RTW program, and if the coaches referred participants to specialist physical or psychological rehabilitation care, alongside the RTW program. These data were provided by the intervention logbooks from the re-integration coaches and job hunting officers.
-
Implementation‘Implementation’ was defined as a composite score of the results of the components ‘reach’ and ‘dosage’, and was calculated by multiplying these proportions.
-
Satisfaction‘Satisfaction’ was defined as the extent to which the content, intensity, duration and delivery of the tailored RTW program was satisfactory according to the participants, OHC professionals, coaches and job hunting officers. Overall satisfaction and experience scores were calculated for each group. These data were captured by the process evaluation questionnaires. The OHC professionals, coaches and job hunting officers received one process evaluation questionnaire for each participant that was under their care.
-
Experienced Barriers within the programThis component summarized the experienced barriers with regard to participation in, or execution of, the tailored RTW program, as experienced by participants, OHC professionals, coaches and job hunting officers. These data were provided by the logbooks, process evaluation questionnaires, and by minutes from meetings between the researchers, the SSA, re-integration coaches and job hunting officers.
Results
Target population
Variable | Categories | Participants (N = 85) |
---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | ||
Age in years | 47.9 (8.5) | |
N (%)a | ||
Gender | Male | 24 (28) |
Female | 61 (72) | |
Level of education | None/primary/lower vocational education | 12 (14) |
Secondary school | 18 (21) | |
Vocational education/upper secondary school | 32 (38) | |
Upper vocational education/ university | 23 (27) | |
Marital status | Living alone | 17 (21) |
Married | 43 (52) | |
Living together | 12 (15) | |
Divorced/widowed | 11 (13) | |
Having children | No | 30 (35) |
Yes | 55 (65) | |
(non-)Dutch nationality | Dutch | 77 (91) |
Non-Dutch | 8 (9) | |
Principal wage earner | No | 39 (46) |
Yes | 46 (54) | |
Type of sector previous job | Blue collar | 7 (8) |
White collar | 27 (33) | |
Civil servant | 26 (31) | |
Health care worker | 23 (28) | |
Type of employment contract prior to loss of employment | Fixed employment contract | 25 (30) |
Temporary employment | 47 (57) | |
Temporary agency work contract | 10 (12) | |
Other type of contract | 1 (1) | |
Previous job demands | Psychological and physical | 27 (33) |
Mainly psychological | 36 (43) | |
Mainly physical | 20 (24) | |
Tumor type | Breast | 30 (35) |
Lung | 1 (1) | |
Gynecological | 4 (5) | |
Colon | 10 (12) | |
Gastro-intestinal | 6 (7) | |
Head and neck | 2 (2) | |
Skin/ melanoma | 0 (0) | |
Prostate | 2 (2) | |
Hematological | 12 (14) | |
Brain | 1 (1) | |
Other type of cancer | 14 (17) | |
Cancer recurrence | 3 (4) | |
Treatment modalities | No treatment | 2 (2) |
Surgery | 64 (75) | |
Radiotherapy | 32 (38) | |
Chemotherapy | 52 (61) | |
Hormone therapy | 19 (25) | |
Immunotherapy | 8 (9) | |
Other type of treatment | 5 (6) | |
Declared free of disease | No | 28 (33) |
Yes | 57 (67) | |
Comorbidity | No | 44 (52) |
Yes | 41 (48) | |
Mean (SD) | ||
Work ability | (0–10) | 4.7 (2.1) |
Components of the process evaluation
Recruitment
Reach
Dosage
RTW program steps | Proportion of participants who received this step |
---|---|
N (% of total 85 participants) | |
Step 1: Introductory interview | 75 (88.2) |
Step 2 (optional): Preparation for RTW (part 1) | 54 (72.0) |
Step 3 (optional): Preparation for RTW (part 2) | 26 (34.7) |
Step 4: Referral to job hunting agency for RTW | 42 (49.4) |
Step 5: Job hunting agency intake | 41 (48.2) |
Step 6: Job hunting agencies offered two suitable jobs | 30 (35.3) |
Themes during coaching sessions
Theme | N (% of 54 participants) |
---|---|
Introduction and planning of RTW program and coaching | 2 (3.7) |
Fatigue and managing energy levels and RTW | 38 (70.4) |
Cognitive and concentration problems and RTW | 24 (44.4) |
Stress, fluctuations in work ability and managing work, private life and recovery | 43 (79.6) |
Communication about cancer at work | 28(51.9) |
Self-control, self-influence and resilience at work | 43 (79.6) |
Increasing work ability and endurance in work and recovery | 38 (70.4) |
Legislation, rights, duties, and opportunities regarding work and illness | 29 (53.7) |
Referral to physical or psychological rehabilitation care alongside the program
Duration of the program
Implementation
Satisfaction
Topics regarding the “Preparation for RTW 1 and 2” parts of the program | Participants (N=63) a |
Satisfaction (score range 1–5) b | Mean (SD) |
To what extent are you satisfied with: | |
-Working with the re-integration coach | 4.4 (0.8) |
-Drawing up the RTW plan | 4.2 (0.8) |
-Program delivered by the re-integration coach (including themes) | 4.2 (0.9) |
-Drawing up a work profile in preparation for RTW | 4.0 (1.0) |
-Referral to a professional for physical rehabilitation care | 4.2 (0.8) |
-Referral to a professional for psychological rehabilitation care | 3.9 (0.9) |
Overall satisfaction score “Preparation for RTW part 1 and 2” | 4.2 (0.2) |
Experience statements “Preparation for RTW part 1 and 2” (score range 1–5) c | Mean (SD) |
-The RTW plan fit well with my wishes and needs for support | 3.8 (1.0) |
-The physical intensity of the program was all right | 3.9 (1.0) |
-The psychological intensity of the program was all right | 3.8 (1.0) |
-The duration of this part of the program was all right | 3.3 (1.3) |
Overall experience score “Preparation for RTW part 1 and 2” | 3.7 (0.3) |
Additional questions regarding steps “Preparation for RTW part 1 and 2” | N (%) |
To what extent did you have confidence in the re-integration coach? | |
-I had full confidence | 27 (60.0) |
-I had reasonable confidence | 16 (35.6) |
-I had little confidence | 1 (2.2) |
-I had no confidence | 1 (2.2) |
What did you think of the amount of time spent in this part of the program? | |
-It was the right amount of time | 27 (61.4) |
-It took up a lot of time | 5 (11.4) |
-It didn’t take up a lot of time | 12 (27.3) |
What do you think of the amount of time invested and the returned benefits of participating in this part of the program? | |
-It cost me little time and gained me a lot | 21 (46.7) |
-It cost me much time and gained me a lot | 6 (13.3) |
-It cost me little time and gained me little | 13 (28.9) |
-It cost me much time and gained me little | 5 (11.1) |
To what extent was it useful for you to participate in this part of the program? | |
-Very useful | 32 (71.1) |
-Reasonably useful | 9 (20.0) |
-Neutral | 1 (2.2) |
-Not so useful | 2 (4.4) |
-Not at all useful | 1 (2.2) |
Topics regarding the “RTW” part of the program | |
Experience statements (score range 1–5) c | Mean (SD) |
-The offered jobs fit well with my wishes and needs for RTW | 2.9 (1.1) |
-By working in the job that was offered, I feel that I can make it in the labour market | 2.5 (1.1) |
Combined experience score “RTW” | 2.7 (0.3) |
Additional questions regarding the RTW part of the program | N (%) |
To what extent did you have confidence in the job hunting officers? | |
-I had full confidence | 6 (30.0) |
-I had reasonable confidence | 10 (50.0) |
-I had little confidence | 3 (15.0) |
-I had no confidence | 1 (5.0) |
To what extent are you satisfied with working in the jobs offered: | |
-Very satisfied | 0 (0.0) |
-Satisfied | 2 (10.0) |
-Neutral | 12 (60.0) |
-Dissatisfied | 2 (10.0) |
-Very dissatisfied | 4 (20.0) |
To what extent was the work easy to combine with other activities in your life? | |
-It was easily combined | 14 (70.0) |
-It was not easily combined | 6 (30.0) |
What do you think of the amount of time invested and the returned benefits of participating in this part of the program? | |
-It cost me little time and gained me a lot | 1 (5.0) |
-It cost me much time and gained me a lot | 3 (15.0) |
-It cost me little time and gained me little | 8 (40.0) |
-It cost me much time and gained me little | 8 (40.0) |
To what extent was it useful for you to participate in these steps of the program? | |
-Very useful | 4(20.0) |
-Reasonably useful | 4 (20.0) |
-Neutral | 8 (40.0) |
-Not so useful | 3 (15.0) |
-Not at all useful | 1 (5.0) |
Overall, if you reflect on the complete RTW program, would you recommend this program to someone else in your situation? | |
-Certainly | 29 (49.2) |
-Probably | 14 (23.7) |
-Maybe | 10 (16.9) |
-Unlikely | 2 (3.4) |
-Certainly not | 4 (6.8) |
Topics | OHC professionals (N=68)a | Re-integration coaches (N=52)a | Job hunting officers (N=48)a |
---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction (score range 1–5)b | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
To what extent are you satisfied with: | |||
-Protocol for delivering the program | N/A | 3.8 (0.4) | 3.7 (0.8) |
-Instructions from my own organization | N/A | 4.4 (0.5) | 4.0 (0.5) |
-Options to deviate within the program protocol | N/A | 3.9 (0.6) | 3.7 (1.0) |
-Options for tailoring the program to participants’ needs | N/A | 3.5 (0.7) | N/A |
-Communication with a contact person within your organization | N/A | 4.0 (0.6) | 3.7 (0.6) |
-Communication with the researchers | N/A | 3.6 (0.5) | 3.6 (0.7) |
-Communication with the OHC professionals during the program | N/A | 3.0 (0.8) | 3.1 (0.8) |
-Transfer from the re-integration coach to the job hunting officers | N/A | 3.7 (1.1) | 3.8 (0.6) |
-Communication with the job hunting officers | N/A | 3.3 (1.3) | N/A |
-Communication with the re-integration coach | N/A | N/A | 3.8 (0.5) |
- Program completion and final contact with the participant | N/A | 4.3 (0.6) | 3.6 (0.8) |
-General information about the program through the SSA | 3.7 (1.0) | N/A | N/A |
-Information about your patient participating in the program | 3.6 (0.9) | N/A | N/A |
-Opportunities to deliberate with the researchers | 3.4 (0.8) | N/A | N/A |
-Information regarding the content of your patients’ program | 3.5 (0.9) | N/A | N/A |
-Opportunities to deliberate with the re-integration coach | 3.2 (1.0) | N/A | N/A |
-Final report from the re-integration coach | 3.5 (1.1) | N/A | N/A |
-Information about your patients’ transfer to job hunting agencies | 3.3 (1.0) | N/A | N/A |
-Opportunities to deliberate with the job hunting officers | 3.2 (1.0) | N/A | N/A |
-Final report from the job hunting officers | 3.4 (1.0) | N/A | N/A |
Overall satisfaction score | 3.4 (0.2) | 3.8 (0.4) | 3.7 (0.2) |
Experience statements (score range 1–5)c | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
-The program fit well into my organization | 3.7 (0.8) | 4.5 (0.6) | 4.4 (0.7) |
-Before the program started, the program objective was clear to me | 3.3 (1.0) | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.4 (0.6) |
-Delivering the program was similar to my usual job demands | N/A | 4.5 (0.6) | 4.1 (1.0) |
-Cooperating with the program agreed with my usual work tasks | 3.7 (0.7) | N/A | N/A |
-Before the program started, I was excited about it | N/A | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.6 (0.5) |
-It was easy to follow the program protocol | N/A | 3.9 (0.7) | 3.5 (1.1) |
-In hindsight, it was useful for me to participate in the program | N/A | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.6) |
-I was able to deliver my usual care alongside the program | 3.6 (0.8) | N/A | N/A |
-In the future, I would work with such a program again | 3.8 (0.8) | 4.6 (0.6) | 4.5 (0.7) |
Overall experience score | 3.6 (0.2) | 4.4 (0.3) | 4.2 (0.4) |
Time consumption of the program | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) |
Delivering, or cooperating with, the program took up extra work time: | |||
-Yes and I did mind that | 7 (10.3) | 3 (5.8) | 1 (2.1) |
-Yes but I did not mind that | 12 (17.6) | 41 (78.8) | 45 (93.8) |
-Neutral | 17 (25.0) | 9 (15.4) | 1 (2.1) |
-No | 29 (42.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.1) |