Behavioral, Psychological, Educational, and Vocational Interventions to Facilitate Employment Outcomes for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2015:5

In the United States, an estimated 1.5 million people are diagnosed annually with some type of cancer (American Cancer Society, 2011). Work is an important stabilizing factor for cancer survivors (Arnold, 1999). De Boer and colleagues (2009) identified a rate of 33.8% unemployment among cancer survivors beyond the age of 18 compared to 15.2% among a healthy international control population. Greater awareness of the job-related and workplace issues that cancer survivors face can lead to more comprehensive rehabilitation plans and recovery (Centers for Disease Control, 2011; Nathan, Hayes-Lattin, Sisler, & Hudson, 2011). Although various recent interventions have been developed to address unemployment among cancer survivors, these have not yet been systematically evaluated. The objective of this systematic review is to examine experimental and quasi-experimental studies about interventions that (i) include one or more behavioral, psychological, educational, or vocational components, (ii) involve cancer survivors aged 18 years or older, and (iii) assess intervention outcomes on employment outcomes. The aims are both to describe the variety of interventions that have been studied using rigorous methods and to estimate intervention effects. This review highlights the positive effect psychosocial interventions may have on employment outcomes for cancer survivors. However, the methodological shortcomings of the included studies overall makes it likely that there is bias in the results and too few studies to provide sufficiently strong evidence to recommend particular practices. This review brings attention to the need for additional rigorous studies in this area, in particular, randomized controlled trials with more detailed reporting of data and study design and methodology. Appended are: (1) Documentation of Search Strategies for the Systematic Review; (2) Coding Form; and (3) Reasons Stage 2 Studies Were Excluded from the Systematic Review.