Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
Impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on working women.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vignes Stéphane, Fau-Prudhomot Pascal, Simon Laura, Sanchez-Bréchot Marie-Laure, Arrault Maria, Locher Fabrice
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The professional impact of upper limb lymphedema, which affects 15-20% of women after breast cancer treatment, has been poorly evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze lymphedema characteristics and global lymphedema- and/or sleeve-attributed impact (mildly inconvenient to severely debilitating) on professional activities, workplace relationships, and workstation ergonomics.
METHODS: Patients received a standardized, anonymous, self-administered questionnaire at consultation/hospitalization for treatment in a specialized lymphedema management center.
RESULTS: All 134 consecutive women (March/2015-March/2017; median age 54), with 53-month median lymphedema duration and 34% median excess volume, were included; 35% considered global impact (arm-use impairment) high. For high vs. low global impact during occupational activities, univariate analyses identified global impairment as being associated with the low (23.8%), intermediate (60%), or high (63.2%) (p < 0.01) arm-use level, while multivariate analyses retained intermediate (OR 6.9 [95% CI 1.1-118.1], p < 0.01) and high (OR 4.5 [95% CI 1.5-37.3], p < 0.05) vs. low arm-use level. Lymphedema affected the careers of 70 (52.2%) patients, mostly those with severely impaired arm movement (53.8% vs. 10.2, p < 0.001), without modifying their relationships with colleagues and superiors for 84 (62.7%). Highly impaired women reported changed relationships with colleagues (45% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and superiors (43.6% vs. 16.9%, p < 0.01). Only 10 women's (7.5%) job changes reflected lymphedema or its treatment. Workplace adaptations (53% ergonomic) were made for 36 (26.9%) patients, mostly those with greater arm-movement impairment (43.6% vs. 25.3%, p < 0.05), who were highly satisfied (86%).
CONCLUSION: Upper limb lymphedema can significantly impact work, sometimes upending careers. The rare workstation adaptations were beneficial. Occupational physicians should assess lymphedema-attributed difficulties to improve working conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze lymphedema characteristics and global lymphedema- and/or sleeve-attributed impact (mildly inconvenient to severely debilitating) on professional activities, workplace relationships, and workstation ergonomics.
METHODS: Patients received a standardized, anonymous, self-administered questionnaire at consultation/hospitalization for treatment in a specialized lymphedema management center.
RESULTS: All 134 consecutive women (March/2015-March/2017; median age 54), with 53-month median lymphedema duration and 34% median excess volume, were included; 35% considered global impact (arm-use impairment) high. For high vs. low global impact during occupational activities, univariate analyses identified global impairment as being associated with the low (23.8%), intermediate (60%), or high (63.2%) (p < 0.01) arm-use level, while multivariate analyses retained intermediate (OR 6.9 [95% CI 1.1-118.1], p < 0.01) and high (OR 4.5 [95% CI 1.5-37.3], p < 0.05) vs. low arm-use level. Lymphedema affected the careers of 70 (52.2%) patients, mostly those with severely impaired arm movement (53.8% vs. 10.2, p < 0.001), without modifying their relationships with colleagues and superiors for 84 (62.7%). Highly impaired women reported changed relationships with colleagues (45% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and superiors (43.6% vs. 16.9%, p < 0.01). Only 10 women's (7.5%) job changes reflected lymphedema or its treatment. Workplace adaptations (53% ergonomic) were made for 36 (26.9%) patients, mostly those with greater arm-movement impairment (43.6% vs. 25.3%, p < 0.05), who were highly satisfied (86%).
CONCLUSION: Upper limb lymphedema can significantly impact work, sometimes upending careers. The rare workstation adaptations were beneficial. Occupational physicians should assess lymphedema-attributed difficulties to improve working conditions.