Survivors’ experiences of return to work following cancer: A photovoice study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For many working-age cancer survivors, return to work represents a quality-of-life indicator. However, there is currently a lack of resources to assist survivors with navigating this process. PURPOSE: As a first step toward informing resources to address this gap, 10 female survivors' return-to-work experiences were explored. METHOD: Photovoice methods were combined with interviews. Photographs and text were analyzed to identify key themes. FINDINGS: Return to work was psychosocially motivated. Survivors independently decided if they would take leave and, if so, when they would return to work. Successful work reintegration was characterized as respectful, collaborative, and customized to each survivor's ongoing limitations and variable recovery. IMPLICATIONS: The findings underscore a holistic, client-centred, and collaborative approach to successful return to work with cancer survivors. Occupational therapists, with their vocational rehabilitation knowledge and responsive practice philosophy, are well positioned to address this gap in survivorship support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".