CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

Employment implications of informal cancer caregiving

Open access
de Moor, Janet S., Dowling, Emily C., Ekwueme, Donatus U., Guy, Gery P., Rodriguez, Juan, Virgo, Katherine S., Han, Xuesong, Kent, Erin E. +5 more·2017·Journal of Cancer Survivorship
DOI 10.1007/s11764-016-0560-5PMC PMC5239760
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Previous research describing how informal cancer caregiving impacts employment has been conducted in small samples or a single disease site. This paper provides population-based estimates of the effect of informal cancer caregiving on employment and characterizes employment changes made by caregivers. Methods The samples included cancer survivors with a friend or family caregiver, participating in either the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Survey (ECSS) (n = 458) or the LIVESTRONG 2012 Survey for People Affected by Cancer (SPAC) (n = 4706). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample of survivors and their caregivers' employment changes. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of caregivers' extended employment changes, comprising time off and changes to hours, duties, or employment status. Results Among survivors with an informal caregiver, 25 % from the ECSS and 29 % from the SPAC reported that their caregivers made extended employment changes. Approximately 8 % of survivors had caregivers who took time off from work lasting ≥2 months. Caregivers who made extended employment changes were more likely to care for survivors: treated with chemotherapy or transplant; closer to diagnosis or end of treatment; who experienced functional limitations; and made work changes due to cancer themselves compared to caregivers who did not make extended employment changes. Conclusions Many informal cancer caregivers make employment changes to provide care during survivors' treatment and recovery. Implications for cancer survivors This study describes cancer caregiving in a prevalent sample of cancer survivors, thereby reflecting the experiences of individuals with many different cancer types and places in the cancer treatment trajectory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11764-016-0560-5

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One multisite US study reported variation in caregivers' professional role reduction by cancer site, with the highest rates among caregivers for hematologic (46%) and colorectal cancers (45%), and lower rates among those caring for patients with breast (36%) or prostate cancers (20%).

    “One multisite study in the United States reported variation in caregivers' professional role reduction by cancer site, with the highest rates among caregivers for hematologic (46%) and colorectal cancers (45%), and lower rates among those caring for patients with breast (36%) or prostate cancers (20%).21”

    From Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Time-Use, Productivity, and Labor Outcomes Among Unpaid Cancer Caregivers (2026) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Methods (Data sources and Analyses; page not provided) describe two US surveys and an analysis of caregivers’ employment changes by cancer site. The Results (Extended employment changes; page not provided) report overall rates of 25% and 29%, but our copy does not report the claimed hematologic, colorectal, breast, or prostate rates or establish their ranking. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [2]Hajdu SI Vadmal M Tang P A note from history: Landmarks in history of cancer, part 7. Cancer 2015 121 15 2480 513 doi:10.1002/cncr.29365 25873516 · DOI
  2. [3]Weingart SN Brown E Bach PB Eng K Johnson SA Kuzel TM NCCN Task Force Report: Oral chemotherapy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2008 6 Suppl 3 S1 14 18377852
  3. [4]Geynisman DM Wickersham KE Adherence to targeted oral anticancer medications. Discovery medicine 2013 15 83 231 41 23636140 PMC6477693
  4. [6]Romito F Goldzweig G Cormio C Hagedoorn M Andersen BL Informal caregiving for cancer patients. Cancer 2013 119 Suppl 11 2160 9 doi:10.1002/cncr.28057 23695928 PMC3816360 · DOI
  5. [8]Yabroff KR Kim Y Time costs associated with informal caregiving for cancer survivors. Cancer 2009 115 18 Suppl 4362 73 doi:10.1002/cncr.24588 19731345 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [9]Van Houtven CH Ramsey SD Hornbrook MC Atienza AA van Ryn M Economic burden for informal caregivers of lung and colorectal cancer patients. Oncologist 2010 15 8 883 93 doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0005 20667966 PMC3228017 · DOI
  7. [10]Hanly P Ceilleachair AO Skally M O'Leary E Staines A Kapur K Time costs associated with informal care for colorectal cancer: an investigation of the impact of alternative valuation methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013 11 3 193 203 doi:10.1007/s40258-013-0013-5 23549793 · DOI
  8. [11]Grunfeld E Coyle D Whelan T Clinch J Reyno L Earle CC Family caregiver burden: results of a longitudinal study of breast cancer patients and their principal caregivers. CMAJ 2004 170 12 1795 801 15184333 PMC419766
  9. [12]Mosher CE Champion VL Azzoli CG Hanna N Jalal SI Fakiris AJ Economic and social changes among distressed family caregivers of lung cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2013 21 3 819 26 doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1585-6 22945881 PMC3560318 · DOI
  10. [13]Mazanec SR Daly BJ Douglas SL Lipson AR Work productivity and health of informal caregivers of persons with advanced cancer. Research in nursing & health 2011 34 6 483 95 doi:10.1002/nur.20461 21953274 PMC4381346 · DOI
  11. [14]Carey M Paul C Cameron E Lynagh M Hall A Tzelepis F Financial and social impact of supporting a haematological cancer survivor. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2012 21 2 169 76 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01302.x 22070745 PMC3508421 · DOI
  12. [15]Warner EL Kirchhoff AC Nam GE Fluchel M Financial Burden of Pediatric Cancer for Patients and Their Families. J Oncol Pract 2014 doi:10.1200/JOP.2014.001495 PMC4295420 25316026 · DOI
  13. [16]Sherwood PR Donovan HS Given CW Lu X Given BA Hricik A Predictors of employment and lost hours from work in cancer caregivers. Psychooncology 2008 17 6 598 605 doi:10.1002/pon.1287 17957756 PMC4846278 · DOI
  14. [17]Bradley CJ Dahman B Time away from work: employed husbands of women treated for breast cancer. J Cancer Surviv 2013 7 2 227 36 doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0263-5 23400733 PMC3624054 · DOI
  15. [18]Mosher CE Jaynes HA Hanna N Ostroff JS Distressed family caregivers of lung cancer patients: an examination of psychosocial and practical challenges. Support Care Cancer 2013 21 2 431 7 doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1532-6 22797839 PMC3493687 · DOI
  16. [19]Yabroff KR Dowling E Rodriguez J Ekwueme DU Meissner H Soni A The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) experiences with cancer survivorship supplement. J Cancer Surviv 2012 6 4 407 19 doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0221-2 23011572 PMC6362834 · DOI
  17. [22]Yabroff KR Short PF Machlin S Dowling E Rozjabek H Li C Access to preventive health care for cancer survivors. Am J Prev Med 2013 45 3 304 12 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.021 23953357 PMC3804250 · DOI
  18. [23]Weaver KE Rowland JH Bellizzi KM Aziz NM Forgoing medical care because of cost: assessing disparities in healthcare access among cancer survivors living in the United States. Cancer 2010 116 14 3493 504 doi:10.1002/cncr.25209 20549763 PMC3018838 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [24]Arrossi S Matos E Zengarini N Roth B Sankaranayananan R Parkin M The socio economic impact of cervical cancer on patients and their families in Argentina, and its influence on radiotherapy compliance. Results from a cross-sectional study. Gynecol Oncol 2007 105 2 335 40 doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.12.010 17258801 · DOI
  20. [25]Goren A Gilloteau I Lees M DaCosta Dibonaventura M Quantifying the burden of informal caregiving for patients with cancer in Europe. Support Care Cancer 2014 22 6 1637 46 doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2122-6 24496758 · DOI
  21. [26]Longo CJ Fitch M Deber RB Williams AP Financial and family burden associated with cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada. Support Care Cancer 2006 14 11 1077 85 doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0088-8 16896878 · DOI
  22. [27]Hayman JA Langa KM Kabeto MU Katz SJ DeMonner SM Chernew ME Estimating the cost of informal caregiving for elderly patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001 19 13 3219 25 11432889
  23. [32]Lynn J Strategies to ease the burden of family caregivers. JAMA 2014 311 10 1021 2 doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1769 24618963 · DOI
  24. [34]Kim Y Given BA Quality of life of family caregivers of cancer survivors: across the trajectory of the illness. Cancer 2008 112 11 Suppl 2556 68 doi:10.1002/cncr.23449 18428199 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35]Mehnert A Employment and work-related issues in cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2011 77 2 109 30 doi:S1040-8428(10)00005-3 [pii] 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.01.004 20117019 · DOI
  26. [36]de Boer AG Taskila T Ojajarvi A van Dijk FJ Verbeek JH Cancer survivors and unemployment: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. JAMA 2009 301 7 753 62 doi:301/7/753 [pii] 10.1001/jama.2009.187 19224752 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Moor, J. S., Dowling, E. C., Ekwueme, D. U., Guy, G. P., Rodriguez, J., Virgo, K. S., Han, X., Kent, E. E., Li, C., Litzelman, K., McNeel, T. S., Liu, B., & Yabroff, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • American Cancer Society (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Information Management Services (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cancer Survivorship
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-07-16
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
48-57
ISSN
  • 1932-2259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-2267
DOI
10.1007/s11764-016-0560-5
PMC
PMC5239760
OpenAlex
W2466406952
Cited by
100
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Survivorship (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
family caregivers, employment change, cancer survivors, time off work, working hours, caregiver employment status, functional limitations, chemotherapy, cancer survivorship
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Caregivers, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review