While enhancing return-to-work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) is known to improve return-to-work (RTW) outcomes in other populations, its conceptualization, measurement, and application within cancer populations remain unclear.
Objective
The objective of this scoping review is to examine the empirical literature regarding how RTW-SE has been described, measured, and addressed among cancer survivors.
Methods
Data Sources: Seven databases were searched. In total, 1208 articles were identified and screened by title and abstract. After full-text review, 29 articles were included in the final data extraction and analysis for this scoping review. Data Extraction: Data related to sample characteristics, study design and objectives, and psychometric properties of RTW-SE measures used were extracted from full texts. Data Synthesis: Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize data extracted from the articles.
Results
Ten different instruments were used across the 29 articles, with the RTWSE-11 (n = 9) being the most frequently used. Articles explored the relationship between RTW-SE and various outcome variables including employment status, and expected time to RTW. Several articles also examined the extent to which RTW-SE predicted RTW, time to RTW, and work ability. Six articles tested psychosocial interventions, with half also incorporating a physical component to improve RTW-SE. None of the articles reported information about thresholds for meaningful change for RTW-SE.
Conclusions
This scoping review summarizes the current literature that describes the role of RTW-SE among cancer survivors who are in the process of returning to work. Future research is needed to determine the predictive validity and sensitivity to change of RTW-SE measures.
TonorezosEDevasiaTMariottoAB, et al.Prevalence of cancer survivors in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst2024; 116: 1784–1790.
2.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The medical and psychological concerns of cancer survivors after treatment. In: From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2006.
3.
MehnertAde BoerAFeuersteinM. Employment challenges for cancer survivors. Cancer2013; 119: 2151–2159.
4.
NekhlyudovLGanzPAAroraNK, et al.Going beyond being lost in transition: a decade of progress in cancer survivorship. J Clin Oncol2017; 35: 1978–1981.
5.
BilodeauKTremblayDDurandMJ. Gaps and delays in survivorship care in the return-to-work pathway for survivors of breast cancer: a qualitative study. Current Oncology2019; 26: e414–e417.
6.
De BlasiGBouteyreERollinL.Giving up work after cancer: an exploratory qualitative study of three clinical cases. Work2018;60:105–115.
7.
KangDBaeKRKimHY, et al.Changes in working status after cancer diagnosis and socio-demographic, clinical, work-related, and psychological factors associated with it. BMC Cancer2022; 22: 17.
8.
RangabashyamMKohSQSultanaR, et al.Factors associated with returning to work in head and neck cancer survivors in Singapore: a preliminary exploratory mixed-methods approach study. Head & Neck2021; 43: 1451–1464.
9.
PorroBde BoerAGEMFrings-DresenMHW, et al.Self-efficacy and return to work in cancer survivors: current knowledge and future prospects. Eur J Cancer Care2020; 29: e13304.
10.
BanduraA. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1991; 50: 248–287.
11.
ScottDAMillsMBlackA, et al.Multidimensional rehabilitation programmes for adult cancer survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013 (3): CD007730.
12.
van OmmenFCoenenPMalekzadehA, et al.Interventions for work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors: a systematic review. Acta Oncologica2023; 62: 753–764.
13.
RenYZhouYZhangL, et al.Readiness for return-to-work model-based analysis of return-to-work perception of young and middle-aged colorectal cancer patients with stoma in the early postoperative period: a descriptive qualitative study. Support Care Cancer2023; 31: 411.
14.
ShawWSHuangY-H. Concerns and expectations about returning to work with low back pain: identifying themes from focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Disability and Rehabilitation2005; 27: 1269–1281.
15.
BrouwerSAmickBCIII, et al.The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil2015; 25: 725–732.
16.
RichardSDionneCENouwenA. Self-efficacy and health locus of control: relationship to occupational disability among workers with back pain. J Occup Rehabil2011; 21: 421–430.
17.
VolkerDZijlstra-VlasveldMCBrouwersEPM, et al.Return-to-work self-efficacy and actual return to work among long-term sick-listed employees. J Occup Rehabil2015; 25: 423–431.
18.
LagerveldSEBlonkRWBBrenninkmeijerV, et al.Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work & Stress2010; 24: 359–375.
19.
TiedtkeCde RijkADonceelP, et al.Survived but feeling vulnerable and insecure: a qualitative study of the mental preparation for RTW after breast cancer treatment. BMC Public Health2012; 12: 38.
20.
FeuersteinMToddBLMoskowitzMC, et al.Work in cancer survivors: a model for practice and research. J Cancer Surviv2010; 4: 415–437.
21.
AlgeoN. The development and feasibility of the occupational therapy-led “Work and Cancer” intervention for women living with and beyond breast cancer: A mixed-methods study [dissertation]. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin, 2021.
22.
MunnZPetersMDJSternC, et al.Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol2018; 18: 43.
23.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169: 467–473.
24.
ArkseyHO'MalleyL. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005; 8: 19–32.
25.
SinghS.Exploring return-to-work self-efficacy in cancer survivors [Internet]. Available from: https://osf.io/9m2ne. Accessed 2025 Feb 19.
26.
Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software [Internet]. Available from: https://www.covidence.org. Accessed 2025 Feb 19.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeR, et al.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2009; 42: 377–381.
29.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBL, et al.The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform2019; 95: 103208.
30.
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. Redmond (WA): Microsoft, 2018.
31.
XuJZhouYLiJ, et al.Cancer patients’ return-to-work adaptation experience and coping resources: a grounded theory study. BMC Nursing2023; 22: 66.
32.
ChengASKLeeSLiN, et al.Chinese translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale among Chinese female breast cancer survivors. Int J Environ Res Public Health2023; 20: 4225.
33.
KochRWittekindtCAltendorf-HofmannA, et al.Employment pathways and work-related issues in head and neck cancer survivors. Head & Neck2015; 37: 585–593.
34.
UllrichARathHMOttoU, et al.Identifying expectations of delayed return to work in patients with prostate cancer at the beginning of a cancer rehabilitation program. J Occup Rehabil2020; 30: 183–193.
35.
LiJMSuXQXuXP, et al.Influencing factors analysis of adaptability of cancer patients to return-to-work. Support Care Cancer2023; 31: 302.
36.
HosmanFLRozemeijerSCAZegersAD, et al.Outcomes and feasibility of an occupational care programme (TERRA) to support work ability of rare and advanced cancer patients: a report of 7 cases. Oncology2024; 102: 350–358.
37.
RosbjergRZachariaeRHansenDG, et al.Physical activity, return to work self-efficacy, and work status among employees undergoing chemotherapy for cancer: a prospective study with 12 months follow-up. BMC Cancer2021; 21: 69.
38.
WolversMDJLeensenMCJGroeneveldIF, et al.Predictors for earlier return to work of cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv2018; 12: 169–177.
39.
LeensenMCJGroeneveldIFvan der HeideI, et al.Return to work of cancer patients after a multidisciplinary intervention including occupational counselling and physical exercise in cancer patients: a prospective study in The Netherlands. BMJ Open2017; 7: e014746.
40.
WangTJinMZhuR, et al.Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and validation in China. Nursing Open2023; 10: 6336–6344.
41.
BoštjančičEGaličK. Returning to work after sick leave: the role of work demands and resources, self-efficacy, and social support. Front Psychol2020; 11: 61.
42.
BainsMMunirFYarkerJ, et al.Return-to-work guidance and support for colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Cancer Nursing2011; 34: E1–12.
43.
BainsMMunirFYarkerJ, et al.The impact of colorectal cancer and self-efficacy beliefs on work ability and employment status: a longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2012; 21: 634–641.
44.
ZhongJShaoLXinZ, et al.The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between social support and work withdrawal behavior: a cross-sectional study among young lung cancer survivors. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs2023; 10: 100207.
45.
RosbjergRHansenDGZachariaeR, et al.The predictive value of return to work self-efficacy for return to work among employees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. J Occup Rehabil2020; 30: 665–678.
46.
ZhengDMarbutAZhangJ, et al.Thinking of how you think of me: working cancer survivors’ metaperceptions of competence and why they matter. J Manag Psychol2023; 38: 158–173.
47.
RosbjergRHansenDGZachariaeR, et al.Validation of the return to work self-efficacy questionnaire in a population of employees undergoing treatment for cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2021; 30: e13373.
48.
CorbièreMRabouinDNegriniA, et al.Validation of the return-to-work obstacles and self-efficacy scale for women on sick leave due to breast cancer (ROSES-BC). J Occup Rehabil2024; 34: 818–831.
49.
HuDLiYZhangH, et al.Return to work in young and middle-aged colorectal cancer survivors: factors influencing self-efficacy, fear, resilience, and financial toxicity. World J Gastroenterol2025; 31: 100357.
50.
NgDWLSoSCYFieldingR, et al.Return to work, work productivity loss and activity impairment in Chinese breast cancer survivors 12-month post-surgery: a longitudinal study. Front Public Health2024; 12: 1340920.
51.
ParkSYLeeMK. Effects of a self-managed return to work intervention for colorectal cancer survivors: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs2024; 70: 102593.
52.
ChenXZhongMChenC, et al.Multivariable prediction of returning to work among early-onset colorectal cancer survivors in China: a two-year follow-up. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs2025; 12: 100637.
53.
ChenXChenSChenG, et al.Assessing barriers and facilitators to return to work for kidney cancer survivors: a 6-month longitudinal study. Semin Oncol Nurs2024; 40: 151744.
54.
GuoYXieHDingL, et al.Effects of a ‘rebuilding myself’ intervention on enhancing the adaptability of cancer patients to return to work: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer2024; 24: 81.
55.
YinYLongXZhangJ, et al.Current status and factors influencing the work readiness of middle-aged and young postoperative lung cancer patients. Medicine2024; 103: e39155.
56.
WenLGaoZZhongX, et al.Readiness for return to work and its influencing factors among head and neck cancer patients: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer2024; 32: 420.
57.
ZhangNYangFDiW, et al.Predictors of return to work among postoperative patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Rehabil2024; 38: 1559–1568.
58.
GuoYJXuePGuWW, et al.Development and validation of adaptability to return-to-work scale (ARTWS) for cancer patients. Front Psychol2024; 14: 1275331.
59.
CocksKGiesingerJM. Defining thresholds for meaningful interpretation of patient-reported outcome scores. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care2026; 20: 18–23.
60.
ByromBBreedonPTulkki-WilkeR, et al.Meaningful change: defining the interpretability of changes in endpoints derived from interactive and mHealth technologies in healthcare and clinical research. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng2020; 7: 2055668319892778.
61.
ShawWSRemeSELintonSJ, et al.3rd Place, PREMUS best paper competition: development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire–psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scand J Work Environ Health2011; 37: 109–119.
62.
CorbièreMNegriniADurandMJ, et al.Development of the return-to-work obstacles and self-efficacy scale (ROSES) and validation with workers suffering from a common mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil2017; 27: 329–341.
63.
LuszczynskaAScholzUSchwarzerR. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol2005; 139: 439–457.
64.
AhlesTARootJCRyanEL. Cancer- and cancer treatment-associated cognitive change: an update on the state of the science. J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 3675–3686.
CosterWJ. Making the best match: selecting outcome measures for clinical trials and outcome studies. Am J Occup Ther2013; 67: 162–170.
67.
Laver-FawcettACoxDL.Selecting and appraising assessments and outcome measures. In: Laver-FawcettACoxDL (eds) Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for allied health professionals. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley, 2021, pp.295–334.
68.
LazićMJovanovićVGavrilov-JerkovićV. The general self-efficacy scale: new evidence of structural validity, measurement invariance, and predictive properties in relationship to subjective well-being in serbian samples. Current Psychology2021; 40: 699–710.
69.
DamásioBFValentiniFNúñes-RodriguezSI, et al.Is the general self-efficacy scale a reliable measure to be used in cross-cultural studies? Results from Brazil, Germany and Colombia. Span J Psychol2016; 19: 29.
70.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
71.
WuSYLiYCChenYW, et al.Construct validity, responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference of the stroke self-efficacy questionnaire in individuals receiving stroke rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil2024; 46: 6195–6203.
72.
DubéMOLangevinPRoyJS. Measurement properties of the pain self-efficacy questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. PAIN Reports2021; 6: e972.
73.
de VetHCTerweeCBOsteloRW, et al.Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes2006; 4: 54.
74.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status. Controlled Clinical Trials1989; 10: 407–415.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
