Fatigue and depressive symptoms improve but remain negatively related to work functioning over 18 months after return to work in cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to investigate the course of work functioning, health status, and work-related factors among cancer patients during 18 months after return to work (RTW) and to examine the associations between these variables and work functioning over time. METHODS: Data were used from the 18-month longitudinal "Work Life after Cancer" (WOLICA) cohort, among 384 cancer patients who resumed work. Linear mixed models were performed to examine the different courses during 18-month follow-up. Linear regression analyses with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to examine the associations and interactions. RESULTS: Cancer patients reported an increase of work functioning and a decrease of fatigue and depressive symptoms in the first 12 months, followed by a stable course between 12 and 18 months. Cognitive symptoms were stable during the first 18 months. Working hours increased and social support decreased during the first 6 months; both remained stable between 6 and 18 months. Fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms were negatively associated with work functioning over time; working hours and supervisor social support were positively associated. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve cancer patients' work functioning over time might be promising if they are aimed at reducing fatigue, depressive symptoms, cognitive symptoms, and encouraging supervisor social support. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: It is important to monitor cancer patients not only in the period directly after RTW but up to 18 months after RTW, allowing for timely interventions when needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".