MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410004182 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32050266

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of iCanWork: Theory-Guided Return-to-Work Intervention for Individuals Touched by Cancer

2025· article· en· W4410004182 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christine Maheu, Maureen Parkinson, Kyla Johnson, Wing Lam Tock, Naomi Dolgoy, Mina Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalBC Cancer AgencyCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)CancerAlternative medicinePathologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews report a limited number of return-to-work (RTW) interventions for individuals touched by cancer (ITBC), with many falling short in effectiveness and lacking an integrated work-health approach. In response, iCanWork-a theoretically informed, multidisciplinary RTW intervention integrating vocational rehabilitation (VR) and occupational therapy (OT)-was conceptualized and developed to address the gap identified in recent reviews for robust, work-health-focused RTW interventions. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary work-related outcomes of the iCanWork intervention among 23 ITBC participants randomized to either the intervention or control group. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment, retention, and engagement benchmarks; acceptability was measured using a participant satisfaction survey. Preliminary work-health-related outcomes included RTW status, work ability index (WAI) scores, and health-related quality of life (QoL) domains. RESULTS: Feasibility benchmarks were achieved, with 92% recruitment, 83% retention, and 100% completing at least one VR session. Adherence to the session delivery benchmarks was met by 75% of participants before RTW and 41.7% after RTW. Participants rated the intervention highly for its tailored and supportive approach. Compared to the control group, the iCanWork group showed modest improvements in RTW status, WAI scores (mean change: +2.54), and QoL domains, including fatigue, social roles, and pain interference. Given the small sample size, these exploratory findings should be interpreted as preliminary signals to inform outcome selection for a future trial. CONCLUSIONS: iCanWork is a feasible and acceptable RTW intervention for ITBC with early indications of benefit. These findings inform the design and outcome selection for a future, larger trial aimed at evaluating the intervention's potential to improve RTW outcomes for ITBC.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→