Work Participation of Patients Affected by Advanced Cancer: A Scoping Review of Current Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The increasing survival rates among patients with advanced cancer have brought attention to the issue of work participation for working‐age individuals, while current studies predominantly focus on early‐stage cancer patients. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize the current knowledge regarding the work participation of patients diagnosed with advanced‐stage cancer. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Mak and Thomas’s guidelines and adhering to PRISMA‐ScR standards. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched for articles published up to December 2023. An update was performed in September 2024. We included English and French studies on patients with advanced cancer, aged 18 years and over, with a focus on their work participation. The results are presented according to the arena model, which provides a framework for understanding different dimensions of work participation. Results: Ten studies, primarily focusing on breast cancer, were included after screening 239 records. Key findings revealed that older women and certain ethnic groups face greater challenges in maintaining employment, with treatment side effects such as pain, fatigue, and cognitive impairment having a significant impact on work participation. The research emphasized the need for improved support and information from the healthcare system regarding employment issues. Conclusion: This scoping review addresses the challenges of work participation for patients with advanced cancer, identifying personal, psychological, and workplace barriers. It emphasizes the need for tailored interventions and highlights a significant gap in healthcare professionals’ guidance on employment issues. Expanding research beyond breast cancer is essential to improve work participation for this population. The predominance of breast cancer in the current literature underscores the urgent need for broader research that includes a wider range of tumor types and male patients, in order to ensure that work participation strategies are inclusive and equitable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".