Using intervention mapping to develop a work-related guidance tool for those affected by cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Working-aged individuals diagnosed and treated for cancer require support and assistance to make decisions regarding work. However, healthcare professionals do not consider the work-related needs of patients and employers do not understand the full impact cancer can have upon the employee and their work. We therefore developed a work-related guidance tool for those diagnosed with cancer that enables them to take the lead in stimulating discussion with a range of different healthcare professionals, employers, employment agencies and support services. The tool facilitates discussions through a set of questions individuals can utilise to find solutions and minimise the impact cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment may have on their employment, sick leave and return to work outcomes. The objective of the present article is to describe the systematic development and content of the tool using Intervention Mapping Protocol (IMP). METHODS: The study used the first five steps of the intervention mapping process to guide the development of the tool. A needs assessment identified the 'gaps' in information/advice received from healthcare professionals and other stakeholders. The intended outcomes and performance objectives for the tool were then identified followed by theory-based methods and an implementation plan. A draft of the tool was developed and subjected to a two-stage Delphi process with various stakeholders. The final tool was piloted with 38 individuals at various stages of the cancer journey. RESULTS: The tool was designed to be a self-led tool that can be used by any person with a cancer diagnosis and working for most types of employers. The pilot study indicated that the tool was relevant and much needed. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention Mapping is a valuable protocol for designing complex guidance tools. The process and design of this particular tool can lend itself to other situations both occupational and more health-care based.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Two included studies adopted the intervention mapping framework developed by Bartholomew and colleagues in 1998.
“Two studies adopted the intervention mapping framework [41] developed by Bartholomew and colleagues in 1998 [42, 43]”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [42]
Several included studies used mixed methods, combining qualitative strategies to explore stakeholders' perspectives and quantitative analysis to estimate the intervention effect.
“Several studies used mixed methods, combining qualitative strategies to explore stakeholders’ perspectives and quantitative analysis to estimate the intervention effect [24, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 40, 42].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [42]
The involvement of stakeholders was identified as a strength by several studies, as stakeholders play a key role in the implementation of interventions into practice.
“The involvement of stakeholders was identified as a strength by several studies, as stakeholders play a key role in the implementation of interventions into practice [30, 32, 33, 42, 43, 45].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [42]
A few included studies reported that the optimisation processes allowed the research team to identify the 'best ingredients' out of several candidate components.
“A few studies reported that the optimisation processes allowed the research team to identify the ‘best ingredients’ out of several candidate components [33, 35–37, 42].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 83
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Hoffman B: Cancer survivors at work. CA Cancer J Clin 2005, 55:271-280.
- Illingworth N, Hubbard G, Stoddart K: Employment following cancer diagnosis: a narrative review of the evidence. Stirling, UK: Cancer Care Research Centre, University of Stirling; 2009.
- Work and cancer: how cancer affects working lives. http://www. cancerbackup.org.uk/News/Press/Pressreleasesstatements/2005/45691514
- Bandura A: Self-efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol Rev 1977, 84:191-215.
- Authors
- Munir, F., Kalawsky, K., Wallis, D. J., & Donaldson-Feilder, E.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Munir, Fehmidah
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2013-01-05
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3585779
- OpenAlex
- W2014476788
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- cancer, return to work, sick leave, employment, intervention mapping, needs assessment, Delphi method, healthcare workers, employers, cancer survivors, occupational health
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Support Techniques, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pilot Projects, Focus Groups, Sick Leave, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research, Return to Work
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
