ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to evaluate associations between possible late effects of cancer treatment (i.e. physical complaints, fatigue, or cognitive complaints) and work ability among workers beyond 2 years after cancer diagnosis who returned to work. The role of job resources (social support, autonomy, leadership style, coaching, and organizational culture) is also evaluated.MethodsThe search for studies was conducted in PsycINFO, Medline, Business Source Premier, ABI/Inform, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. A quality assessment was used to clarify the quality across studies.ResultsThe searches included 2303 records. Finally, 36 studies were included. Work ability seemed to decline shortly after cancer treatment and recover in the first 2 years after diagnosis, although it might still be lower than among healthy workers. No data were available on the course of work ability beyond the first 2 years. Late physical complaints, fatigue and cognitive complaints were negatively related with work ability across all relevant studies. Furthermore, social support and autonomy were associated with higher work ability, but no data were available on a possible buffering effect of these job resources on the relationship between late effects and work ability. As far as reported, most research was carried out among salaried workers.ConclusionIt is unknown if late effects of cancer treatment diminish work ability beyond two years after being diagnosed with cancer. Therefore, more longitudinal research into the associations between possible late effects of cancer treatment and work ability needs to be carried out. Moreover, research is needed on the buffering effect of job resources, both for salaried and self-employed workers.
MULTIFILE
ObjectiveThis study investigates the feasibility of delivering inspiratory muscle training as part of the physical therapy treatment for patients with post-COVID dyspnoea.DesignMixed-methods pilot study.Subjects/patientsPatients with complaints of dyspnoea after COVID-19 infection and their physical therapists.MethodsThe Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers conducted this study. Participants performed daily inspiratory muscle training at home for 6 weeks, consisting of 30 repetitions against a pre-set resistance. The primary outcome was feasibility assessed as acceptability, safety, adherence and patient- and professional experience obtained through diaries and semi-structured interviews. The secondary outcome was maximal inspiratory pressure.ResultsSixteen patients participated. Nine patients and 2 physical therapists partook in semi-structured interviews. Two patients dropped out before initiating the training. Adherence was 73.7%, and no adverse events occurred. Protocol deviations occurred in 29.7% of the sessions. Maximal inspiratory pressure changed from 84.7% of predicted at baseline to 111.3% at follow-up. Qualitative analysis identified barriers to training: ‘Getting acquainted with the training material’ and ‘Finding the right schedule’. Facilitators were: ‘Support from physical therapists’ and ‘Experiencing improvements’.ConclusionDelivering inspiratory muscle training to patients with post-COVID dyspnoea seems feasible. Patients valued the simplicity of the intervention and reported perceived improvements. However, the intervention should be carefully supervised, and training parameters adjusted to individual needs and capacity.
Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. Methods Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0–12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months. Results In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10–4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11–12.98) for the highrisk group. Conclusion The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (�50) is recommended.
