Worse and worse off: the impact of Lymphedema on work and career after breast cancer

John Boyages, Senia Kalfa, Ying Xu, Louise Koelmeyer, Helen Mackie, Hector Viveros, Lucy Taksa, Paul Gollan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Our study examines the impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on women’s work and career. Our research addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors. Methods: An online national survey was conducted with 361 women who either had breast cancer without lymphedema (Group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (Group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association. Results: Both breast cancer and lymphedema had a significant negative influence on women’s work and career. Respondents reported changes in employment resulting from stress and/or physical impairment, which affected attendance and work performance. The perceived negative impact of breast cancer on respondents’ work and career was noticeably greater in Group 2 (63 %) than Group 1 (51 %) (p = 0.03). Of the participants who were in paid employment at some time (either at diagnosis of lymphedema or at the time of the survey (n = 103), 43 (42 %) indicated that lymphedema impacted their work performance. The impact of lymphedema on work was incremental with increased severity of lymphedema (range 22–75 %). The annual number of days off work for subclinical/mild lymphedema participants was 1.4 versus 8.1 days for moderate or severe participants (p = 0.003). Conclusions: This study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women’s work and career over and above the initial impact of breast cancer and provides empirical evidence for future prospective studies and policy improvement.

LanguageEnglish
Article number657
Pages1-8
Number of pages8
JournalSpringerPlus
Volume5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Lymphedema
Breast Neoplasms
Survivors
Breast Cancer Lymphedema
Prospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Cite this

@article{df3a60ca4fd9482fbce26906e9555065,
title = "Worse and worse off: the impact of Lymphedema on work and career after breast cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: Our study examines the impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on women’s work and career. Our research addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors. Methods: An online national survey was conducted with 361 women who either had breast cancer without lymphedema (Group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (Group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association. Results: Both breast cancer and lymphedema had a significant negative influence on women’s work and career. Respondents reported changes in employment resulting from stress and/or physical impairment, which affected attendance and work performance. The perceived negative impact of breast cancer on respondents’ work and career was noticeably greater in Group 2 (63 {\%}) than Group 1 (51 {\%}) (p = 0.03). Of the participants who were in paid employment at some time (either at diagnosis of lymphedema or at the time of the survey (n = 103), 43 (42 {\%}) indicated that lymphedema impacted their work performance. The impact of lymphedema on work was incremental with increased severity of lymphedema (range 22–75 {\%}). The annual number of days off work for subclinical/mild lymphedema participants was 1.4 versus 8.1 days for moderate or severe participants (p = 0.003). Conclusions: This study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women’s work and career over and above the initial impact of breast cancer and provides empirical evidence for future prospective studies and policy improvement.",
author = "John Boyages and Senia Kalfa and Ying Xu and Louise Koelmeyer and Helen Mackie and Hector Viveros and Lucy Taksa and Paul Gollan",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1186/s40064-016-2300-8",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "SpringerPlus",
issn = "2193-1801",
publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",

}

Worse and worse off : the impact of Lymphedema on work and career after breast cancer. / Boyages, John; Kalfa, Senia; Xu, Ying; Koelmeyer, Louise; Mackie, Helen; Viveros, Hector; Taksa, Lucy; Gollan, Paul.

In: SpringerPlus, Vol. 5, 657, 2016, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Worse and worse off

T2 - SpringerPlus

AU - Boyages, John

AU - Kalfa, Senia

AU - Xu, Ying

AU - Koelmeyer, Louise

AU - Mackie, Helen

AU - Viveros, Hector

AU - Taksa, Lucy

AU - Gollan, Paul

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Purpose: Our study examines the impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on women’s work and career. Our research addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors. Methods: An online national survey was conducted with 361 women who either had breast cancer without lymphedema (Group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (Group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association. Results: Both breast cancer and lymphedema had a significant negative influence on women’s work and career. Respondents reported changes in employment resulting from stress and/or physical impairment, which affected attendance and work performance. The perceived negative impact of breast cancer on respondents’ work and career was noticeably greater in Group 2 (63 %) than Group 1 (51 %) (p = 0.03). Of the participants who were in paid employment at some time (either at diagnosis of lymphedema or at the time of the survey (n = 103), 43 (42 %) indicated that lymphedema impacted their work performance. The impact of lymphedema on work was incremental with increased severity of lymphedema (range 22–75 %). The annual number of days off work for subclinical/mild lymphedema participants was 1.4 versus 8.1 days for moderate or severe participants (p = 0.003). Conclusions: This study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women’s work and career over and above the initial impact of breast cancer and provides empirical evidence for future prospective studies and policy improvement.

AB - Purpose: Our study examines the impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema on women’s work and career. Our research addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors. Methods: An online national survey was conducted with 361 women who either had breast cancer without lymphedema (Group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (Group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association. Results: Both breast cancer and lymphedema had a significant negative influence on women’s work and career. Respondents reported changes in employment resulting from stress and/or physical impairment, which affected attendance and work performance. The perceived negative impact of breast cancer on respondents’ work and career was noticeably greater in Group 2 (63 %) than Group 1 (51 %) (p = 0.03). Of the participants who were in paid employment at some time (either at diagnosis of lymphedema or at the time of the survey (n = 103), 43 (42 %) indicated that lymphedema impacted their work performance. The impact of lymphedema on work was incremental with increased severity of lymphedema (range 22–75 %). The annual number of days off work for subclinical/mild lymphedema participants was 1.4 versus 8.1 days for moderate or severe participants (p = 0.003). Conclusions: This study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women’s work and career over and above the initial impact of breast cancer and provides empirical evidence for future prospective studies and policy improvement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971422890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s40064-016-2300-8

DO - 10.1186/s40064-016-2300-8

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - SpringerPlus

JF - SpringerPlus

SN - 2193-1801

M1 - 657

ER -