Skip to main content

Exploring the independent association of employment status to cancer survivors’ health-related quality of life



Having a job has been associated with better Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in cancer survivors. However, the sociodemographic and disease-related profiles characterizing the survivors being employed and those having better HRQOL largely overlap. The present study aims to discern the degree to which employment status is independently associated with cancer survivors’ HRQOL or if it mainly reflects the impact of other sociodemographic and cancer-related variables.


Cross-sectional study on a heterogeneous sample of 772 working-age survivors of adult-onset cancer. An instrument specifically designed to assess HRQOL in cancer survivors and Multivariate Variance Analysis (MANOVA) were used.


Survival phase, cancer type, and employment status showed the main effects on cancer survivors’ HRQOL. In particular, being employed (vs unemployed) had the greatest positive association with HRQOL, affecting ten of the twelve HRQOL domains considered. Also, interaction effects highlighted the role of age (younger) and marital status (single) as risk factors for a greater negative impact of variables affecting the survivor’s HRQOL.


The application of a multivariate methodology sheds new light on two relevant issues for the cancer survivor’s HRQOL: (i) the existence of differences between diagnostic groups that are not attributed to other variables such as sex, and (ii) the important and independent role that employment status plays. Comprehensive cancer survivorship care should focus more on high-risk groups and include having a job as an essential aspect to consider and prompt. The fact that the employment status is susceptible to change represents a valuable opportunity to care for the wellbeing of this population.


Advances in cancer treatment have made it possible to witness a steady increase in cancer survival for the last few decades. This improvement in cancer survival brings new hope for cancer patients and new challenges in cancer survivors’ attention and the care of their Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). In this context, studying cancer’s long-term effects and their potential modulators is of pivotal relevance [1,2,3].

Cancer survivors often suffer from late and long-term physical effects such as pain, fatigue, and cognitive impairment (short-term memory, verbal expression, and spatial skills) as well as psychosocial problems related to fear of recurrence and difficulties in undertaking social, family and work roles [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Thus, even after several years of primary treatment completion, the HRQOL of cancer survivors might still be affected [8, 11]. Although results are still inconclusive and present limitations [12, 13], the literature points to the following as moderating variables of the impact of cancer on the survivor’s HRQOL: type and number of strategies included in the primary treatment [14, 15], age [16, 17], gender [2, 15], marital status [18, 19], education level [17, 18], and unemployment [19, 20].

Employment status deserves special attention given the central role that employment currently plays in people’s lives worldwide, especially in industrialised countries, where an average adult invests more than two-thirds of their time in their work [21, 22]. From an extrinsic or instrumental perspective, attempts have been made to explain the centrality of work in that it constitutes a resource for economic and material security [23]. However, a second theoretical approach emphasizes an intrinsic perspective, in which work is essential because it guarantees socio-psychological needs, fostering personal identity, self-esteem, status and a sense of success [21, 23]. Thus, employment is the main way of obtaining the economic resources needed to live and also a key tool that facilitates inclusion in social life [24] and promotes well-being.

In line with the second theoretical formulation, there are numerous benefits for cancer survivors who continue working. It allows cancer survivors to restore a sense of normality, identity and living conditions, provides social support and could even be considered a healthy distraction [25,26,27,28]. Return to work represents, in short, returning to the daily life from which the patients were temporarily excluded because of the cancer diagnosis and treatment. Thus, it is a significant factor affecting their QOL through the restoration of interpersonal relationships and social status [6, 29]. Several studies show that unemployed cancer survivors or those with more significant work-related impairments experience greater long-term psychological distress and worse QOL compared with those with a job and those who experience minor work-related impairments [19, 29, 30]. As with other workers, people with cancer use employment as a social and economic resource, but it also has a special significance because it allows them to gain confidence in their health and social status [31].

However, the data indicate that about half of those cancer survivors who are of working age [32] suffer a negative impact of cancer and its treatment that interfere with their ability to work [6, 33,34,35]. The side effects of cancer treatment can make it challenging to keep a job, forcing the individual to reduce their workload, take a break from work, or directly quit for good their jobs [36,37,38]. According to a recent meta-analysis [39], the cancer survivor’s ability to work continues to be significantly negatively impacted 6 years after diagnosis, on average. Furthermore, unemployment rates are significantly higher for cancer survivors than for the general population [35]. Cancer survivors are approximately 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a history of cancer, and roughly 25% of cancer survivors will not have returned to work 2 years after diagnosis [35]. In Spain, the scarce results available on this topic point out that cancer leaves roughly 25,000 survivors at risk of social exclusion each year, which accounts for almost a third (27.7%) of all diagnoses in the working population [40]. While around 53% of working-age cancer patients in Spain survive more than 5 years after diagnosis, only 45% of them will return to work [31, 40].

Although evidence so far supports the relevance of employment status in the cancer survivor’s HRQOL, caution must be taken when concluding that it is one objective outcome of their HRQOL [41]. In this context, it would be advisable to analyse the role of the employment status as independently associated with the HRQOL [33]. The type of work (physically or cognitively demands or job flexibility) also relates to employment status after cancer [6, 23, 29, 32]. In addition, the most frequently cited variables predicting employment status after cancer include sociodemographic factors such as gender [26], age [42], marital status [43], education level [44, 45], and chemotherapy [27]. Note that the variables predicting employment status overlap those that modulate HRQOL. Thus, it is necessary to discern whether employment status is independently associated with HRQOL in cancer survivors or if its role mainly reflects the impact of other sociodemographic and cancer-related variables.

In light of the above, the present study aims to overcome some of the limitations in the literature on the link between employment status and cancer survivors’ HRQOL. In particular, it explores the independent association between the two variables in a heterogeneous sample of survivors of adult-onset cancer with a disease-free status. It does so by using an instrument specifically designed to assess HRQOL in cancer survivors. Finally, the present study also analyses the independent association of employment status with cancer survivors’ HRQOL by controlling the effect of other sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, education level, and disease-related variables such as cancer type, primary treatment strategies and time elapsed since the end of primary treatment.


Participants and procedure

This cross-sectional study is part of a research project on HRQOL and unmet psychosocial needs in adult oncology survivors in Spain, and it was approved by the Ethics Committee of the participating medical institutions and cancer patient associations; specifically, by the Research Ethics Committee of the Valencian Institute of Oncology Foundation (FIVO). Inclusion criteria for the general sample of participants were: i) to have been diagnosed with adult cancer; ii) to present no evidence of disease; and iii) to have completed primary treatment with curative intent (surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) at least one month before the time of the study (time frame of reference explored by QLACS). Of the total number of survivors fulfilling inclusion criteria (N = 1862), the present study focuses exclusively on working-age cancer survivors. Therefore, data from 772 participants are analysed, all of them agreed to participate and provided written consent. A psychologist carried out the face-to-face assessment during one of the survivors’ visits to the health centres.

Participants’ age ranged from 22 to 64 years (M = 52.1; SD = 8.7), with a majority being over 45 years of age (79.7%). Most of them were women (68.9%), married or living with a partner (70.3%), did not have a university education (58.2%) and were employed (55.3%). The distribution of cancer type was breast (48.2%), colorectal (9.8%), prostate (9.8%), haematological (8.3%), head and neck (7.5%), gynaecological (6.7%), melanoma (4.9%), and multiple (4.7%).

Regarding primary treatment with curative intent, a substantial proportion of the participants (44.8%) had received combined treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy (with or without surgery); 38.5% had received local treatment, and 16.7% had received systemic treatment (with or without surgery). Lastly, the average length of time elapsed after the completion of primary treatment was 4.3 years (range: 1 month—30 years).

Concerning time of survival, the study follows the proposal of Stanton et al. [44] that distinguishes three survival phases. In this way, 20.3% of participants had completed primary treatment in the previous 12 months (re-entry survivorship phase, RES); 32.9% had completed it at least 5 years before the moment of interview (long-term survivorship phase, LTS), and 46.8% had exceeded 12 months after primary treatment but had not yet reached 5 years (early survivorship phase, ES) (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants


Health-related QOL (HRQOL)

This variable was assessed with the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale [45], specifically with the Spanish version of Escobar and col. [46]. This scale comprises 47 items concerning twelve domains: negative feelings, positive feelings, cognitive problems, physical pain, problems with sexual functioning, fatigue, social avoidance, financial problems, family-related distress, appearance concerns, distress over recurrence, and cancer benefits. Moreover, each domain consists of 4 items except for family-related distress, with only three items (the resulting score from the latter is multiplied by 1.33 to be comparable with the other domains).

The period assessed with the QLACS focuses on the previous month, using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never trough 7 = always) with higher scores indicating lower HRQOL (except for positive feelings and benefits of cancer). Previous results with the Spanish version support QLACS’ good psychometric properties [12]. The reliability indices obtained in this study were satisfactory (see Table 2). It should be noted that α = 0.67 for the distress-recurrence variable is an acceptable value of internal consistency since this scale has less than 10 items [47].

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha and Pearson correlations among the HRQOL domains

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarise sociodemographic, cancer-related and psychosocial data. A Multivariate Variance analysis (MANOVA), including all other sociodemographic and illness-related variables assessed as independent variables, was applied to the HRQOL domains. Due to the numerous independent variables, analyses were limited to the main effect and second-order interactions. Because of the different groups’ sizes, Pillai’s trace (V) was used to evaluate the multivariate significant overall differences. Follow-up univariate F tests were conducted, and significant results on the univariate tests were followed with Bonferroni’s comparisons between all possible pairs of means. The statistical significance level for analyses was p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22.0.


Descriptive data on sociodemographic and disease-related variables for the total sample and for the subgroups established according to employment status are shown in Table 1. Descriptive and correlational data for QLACS domains are shown in Table 2.

The results of the MANOVA showed a significant main effect for cancer type (V = 0.18, F(84, 4186) = 1.34, p < 0.05), time elapsed since the end of primary treatment (F(24, 1186) = 1.54, p < 0.05), and employment status (F(12, 592) = 5.25, p < 0.001) (See Table 3).

Table 3 MANOVA factorial (2a × 8b × 3c × 2d × 3e × 2f × 2 g × 2 h) domains of HRQOL*

The univariate analysis (See Table 4) showed that longer survival time (differentiating among re-entry survivorship (RES), early survivorship (ES), and long-term survivorship (LTS) was associated with less fatigue (F(2, 603) = 4.48, p < 0.05) and fewer sexual problems (F(2, 603) = 3.65, p < 0.05) (although there were no differences between the groups).

Table 4 Means, standard deviations (in brackets), F values, and post hoc Bonferroni procedure for employment status groups and time since primary treatment across survivors and HRQOL measures

Some types of cancer emerged as risk factors for increased vulnerability in specific domains of the HRQOL (See Table 5). Hematologic and breast cancer survivors were more affected by cognitive problems than the rest of cancer the cancer type subgroups (F(7, 603) = 2.16, p < 0.05). Appearance concerns (F(7, 603) = 3.43, p < 0.01) was most prominent in hematologic, breast and gynecologic cancer survivors than in the rest of the cancer type subgroups. Financial problems (F(7, 603) = 2.63, p < 0.05) were mainly present in hematologic, multiple, and head/neck cancer survivors. Family-related distress (F(7, 603) = 2.25, p < 0.05) was higher for multiple cancer survivors than for the rest of cancer type subgroups. Finally, distress over recurrence (F(7, 603) = 2.43, p < 0.05) was higher in multiple, hematologic, breast, and gynecologic cancer survivors than in the rest of the cancer type subgroups. In all cases, prostate cancer survivors were less affected than the rest of the cancer type subgroups.

Table 5 Means, standard deviations (in brackets), F values, and post hoc Bonferroni procedure for treatment type groups and HRQOL measures

Regarding employment status, being unemployed was associated with worse HRQOL in all domains except for family-related distress and distress over recurrence (See Table 4).

Interaction effects (See Tables 6, 7 and 8) showed different deterioration by age in several domains of HRQOL as a function of survival phase (F(24, 1186) = 1.96, p < 0.01), employment status (F(12, 592) = 2.34, p < 0.01), cancer type (F(84, 4186) = 1.72, p < 0.001), and primary treatment with chemotherapy (F(24, 4186) = 1.54, p < 0.05). The results of univariate analyses showed that survivors ≤ 45 years in the early survival phase presented more cognitive and sexual problems than survivors ≤ 45 years in the long survival phase and more negative feelings than survivors aged 46–64 years at any phase. Likewise, unemployed survivors ≤ 45 years were the subgroup with the greatest deterioration in positive feelings, financial problems, sexual problems and concern about appearance. Prostate cancer survivors ≤ 45 years reported (i) more pain than multiple diagnosis survivors ≤ 45 years and cancer survivors of prostate, colorectal, head and neck, and melanoma aged 46–64 years; and (ii) more fatigue than prostate survivors aged 46–64 years and melanoma survivors ≤ 45 years. Likewise, colorectal and multiple cancers survivors ≤ 45 years experienced greater distress-family than prostate and gynecologic cancer survivors ≤ 45 years. Finally, colorectal cancer survivors aged 46–64 years experienced greater distress-family than gynecologic cancer survivors ≤ 45 years. Bivariate analyses were not significant with respect to the primary treatment.

Table 6 Means, standard deviations (in brackets), and post hoc Bonferroni procedure for interaction employment status and age (upper level), and interaction employment status and marital status
Table 7 Means, standard deviations (in brackets), and post hoc Bonferroni procedure for interaction time since primary treatment and age
Table 8 Means, standard deviations (in brackets), and post hoc Bonferroni procedure for interaction between cancer type and age, cancer type and marital status

Interaction effects also showed different deterioration in HRQOL by marital status as a function of cancer type (F(84, 4186) = 1.30, p < 0.05) and employment status (F(12, 592) = 2.34, p < 0.01). Single and unemployed survivors showed more negative feelings, financial problems, pain and social avoidance than employed single survivors and survivors with partners (employed and unemployed). Furthermore, employed single survivors showed more negative feelings and pain than unemployed survivors with a partner. At the same time, unemployed survivors with a partner reported more financial problems and pain than employed survivors with a partner and more negative feelings than employed single survivors. Finally, single breast cancer survivors and multiple diagnosis survivors with a partner presented more financial problems than breast, colorectal and melanoma survivors with a partner.


The present study aimed to explore the role of employment status after the diagnosis and treatment of cancer on survivors’ HRQOL controlling the influence of several sociodemographic and disease-related variables. Our results supported the significant influence of the work status, the survival stage, and certain diagnoses on the cancer survivor´s HRQOL. In addition, the interaction effects highlighted the role of two sociodemographic variables as risk factors for a greater impact on the cancer survivor’s HRQOL: lower age and being single.

It has been noted that returning to work after the cancer experience would allow to retain a sense of normalcy, personal identity, and connectedness to others [25,26,27,28, 39], while the thought of not being able to have a job may represent a personal defeat that can lead to lasting difficulties [48]. Based on the results obtained, having a job has a positive impact on the domains of financial problems, sexual problems, concern about appearance, social avoidance, and negative and positive affectivity. This result is consistent with the authors’ previous findings regarding the higher prevalence of distress and unmet psychological, interpersonal, practical, and economic needs in unemployed colorectal cancer survivors [49].

In addition, having a job was also associated with better HRQOL in areas directly associated with common side effects of cancer treatment, such as pain and fatigue. The evidence suggests that, although seemingly counter-intuitive, rest is the wrong option to combat fatigue [50], highlighting, at the same time, the role of distraction in the perception of pain [51]. Given that worst symptoms also predict employment status, the specific relationship between these two variables is still to be elucidated. Nevertheless, it does not seem unreasonable to consider that bidirectionality is possible and that the activity and distraction of active working life [52] help reduce fatigue and pain perception. Therefore, supporting an intrinsic perspective [21, 23], data from this research show that having a job after cancer can be beneficial from a societal point of view and for the physical and mental health and the rehabilitation of the cancer survivor.

According to interactions effects, being unemployed is particularly associated with impaired HRQOL in single and ≤ 45 years’ survivors. Although previous research in this regard is inconsistent [53,54,55,56], our results underline the protective role of a partner, who acts as the primary source of social support. The existence of a partner buffers not only the financial impact of unemployment, but also its affective, social and even physical impact. Older age also plays a protective role in terms of the impact of unemployment on the cancer survivor HRQOL [7, 26]. In addition to the smaller financial impact of work status on survivors aged 46–64 years old, unemployment in this subgroup is also associated with lower concern for appearance and lower affectation in the emotional and sexual spheres.

Furthermore, our data revealed a greater economic impact of the cancer experience in multiple-cancer survivors with a partner and in breast cancer survivors that are single. It is not unlikely that repeated experiences with cancer will have a bigger impact on the family economy. In addition, the economic consequences of HRQOL deterioration due to prolonged (5–10 years) and frequent treatment with hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors [57] would be particularly visible in single breast cancer survivors.

According to different disease parameters, younger survivors are also a risk group to pay special attention to [19, 58]. Their HRQOL is particularly impaired when they have received chemotherapy as a primary treatment strategy as well as when they are in the early survival phase. Likewise, the better HRQOL usually associated with a diagnosis of prostate cancer [10, 19, 58, 59] does not seem to be presumed in survivors ≤ 45. Two key side effects of the cancer experience, pain and fatigue, are particularly relevant in this subgroup. Finally, the family-distress was found to be especially elevated in survivors ≤ 45 years with a multiple diagnosis as well as in those with colorectal cancer. It is true that the appearance of cancer at younger than normal ages as well as the appearance of more than one type of cancer in the same person are risk factors for the presence of hereditary genetic mutation [60,61,62,63]. However, it is also true that only 5–10% of total cancer cases are considered hereditary [61, 62]. It seems advisable, based on the obtained results, to approach the younger multiple and colorectal cancer survivor individually in order to clarify whether or not this concern is justified in his or her particular case. It may also be advisable to disseminate precise information on the subject by means of information campaigns. The increased social visibility given to breast cancer may be responsible for the fact that, despite sharing similar hereditary cancer figures to colorectal cancer [17, 19], the distress related to the risk of cancer among family members is not an equally prominent concern among survivors of breast cancer.

Although it was not the main objective of our study, the MANOVA results also revealed the role played by other variables frequently mentioned in the literature as predictors of HRQOL of cancer survivors. Despite the existing evidence regarding gender, educational level, and number/strategies of primary treatment [2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18] as moderating variables of the cancer survivor’s HRQOL, these variables were not found to be independent predictors of the HRQOL in the age group analysed. In contrast, two disease-related variables did show an independent association with cancer survivor HRQOL: type of cancer and time since the end of primary treatment. Consistent with previous findings [24, 58], the results showed that the HRQOL of cancer survivors continues to be affected even when a long time has elapsed since the end of primary treatment. Also, although researches comparing HRQOL among survivors with different types of cancer are rare, the results of this study are consistent with most of the existing evidence [10, 19, 58, 63]. Hematologic, breast, and gynecologic cancer survivors experienced the greatest impact on their HRQOL; the least impact on HRQOL was experienced by prostate and melanoma cancer survivors, with the remaining cancer types occupying intermediate positions. Likewise, and given that the effect of cancer type on HRQOL remained significant after controlling for the effect of other sociodemographic and disease-related variables, our results support that differences in HRQOL between diagnostic subgroups are not due to other variables frequently associated with cancer type such as sex, age at diagnosis, and number/type of primary treatment strategies. It seems necessary to consider less obvious variables that also differentiate diagnostic groups (such as body area irradiated, chemotherapy protocol, maintenance treatment, etc.) to fully understand differences in HRQOL related to cancer type.

It is noteworthy that from the variables associated with the cancer survivor´s HRQOL, especially for those younger and single, only employment status is susceptible to modification. This susceptibility to modification is a valuable opportunity to care for the wellbeing of this population. Currently, the risk of unemployment for cancer survivors (where over 50% are of working age) is higher than for the general population [21, 35]. In addition, cancer survivors who return to work often report a loss of income due to a change in the workplace or their professional role, a decreased scope of work and even early retirement [35]. Thus, the ability to work, which is not only a function of one’s capacities (e.g. physical and mental abilities) but also of the job demands and resources [56], requires significant attention in the integral care of the cancer survivor. The social sector should play a complementary role to the health sector in improving the reintegration of cancer survivors into normal social roles and activities without discrimination, not only in Spain, where indeed these measures are pertinent and needed [64] but also in any country where the wellbeing of cancer survivors is trying to be preserved and promoted.

For all of the above, it is essential to acknowledge and address the concerns that are often expressed by cancer survivors relating to the workplace (e.g. disclosing their diagnosis), their ability to work, their physical appearance, and the difficulties when negotiating workplace accommodations with employers [24, 65]. Survivors also express a need to be guided and supported by health care professionals and vocational providers in order to have a job [7, 21, 49]. For Cancer survivors, having a job can also be facilitated by the willingness of employers to make job accommodations that mitigate the effects of cancer by maintaining a supportive work culture and environment. To this aim, raising awareness about the possibility, the need, the benefits and the importance of such accommodations is crucial, and also about the negative impact that the lack of them could signify for the cancer survivors, the work culture and environment, and lastly, the prosperity of the job entity. The significance of such adjustments is underlined by findings indicating that cancer survivors who receive workplace accommodations or whose jobs have more favourable employment protection policies have better employment outcomes [66]. In addition, a favourable psychosocial work environment has been shown to positively correlate with work skills [34, 67]. Thus, it is necessary to tackle integral policies and strategies that ensure access to employment and the appropriate adaptations in the workplace, all of which will safeguard the cancer survivors’ wellbeing and quality of life.

Current results regarding the effectiveness of RTW interventions point to multidisciplinary programmes (typically comprising a combination of psycho-educational, vocational, physical, medical or pharmacological interventions) as those associated with better employment outcomes [68], even though data based on randomised controlled trials does not support an improvement in employment rates of cancer survivors from targeted interventions [69]. A possible explanation for the disappointing results of such targeted interventions is that most of them are focused on the short-term [70].

Indeed, work limitations arising from the complex nature of the consequences of cancer and its treatment make the need for employment intervention plans to extend throughout cancer care and the superiority of multidimensional interventions unsurprising [71]. Thus, it has been pointed out that effective screening of survivors’ work-related limitations, concerns, and goals should be addressed throughout care [22]. In addition, health care professionals can play an essential role in the challenging process of having a job by providing the survivor with guidance, support, and functional and emotional assistance [72]. In this line, the European Commission’s Joint Action on Cancer Control [1] points out that psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation should take a person-centred approach and be supplied as part of a comprehensive care program essential for successful survival. Also, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Survivorship Panel [65] has outlined a framework to aid clinicians in systematically addressing work-related concerns of cancer survivors after active disease treatment. This panel recommends that communication about a patient’s work and employment begin early in the course of decision-making about treatment and that work-related concerns should be regularly re-evaluated to provide appropriate support. The panel also recommends a multidisciplinary team approach that involves social work, primary care, physical therapy/occupational therapy, cancer rehabilitation and vocational counselling services. Therefore, advances in the development, implementation, and evaluation of survivorship care, including comprehensive rehabilitation services, are highly needed [64].

In sum, results from the present study underline the importance of employment status as closely related to the cancer survivor’s HRQOL, together with other variables related to the disease, such as type of cancer and time elapsed since the end of primary treatment, based on the data analysis from a large and heterogeneous sample of working-age cancer survivors. Notwithstanding the overall attention required by these variables, our results underline the need for special consideration of single survivors and younger survivors, since they both appear to be particularly vulnerable subgroups.

Strengths of this work are the large and heterogeneous sample by cancer type, the use of an HRQOL instrument specifically aimed at the cancer survivor population, and the application of the multivariate methodology that allows determining the variance in HRQOL explained by employment status (controlling for the variance in HRQOL linked to other sociodemographic and disease-related variables).

Despite its significant contributions, this study is not without limitations. For instance, this paper focused on the impact of employment versus unemployment on cancer survivors' HRQOL. Perhaps, other employment difficulties less visible than unemployment (such as underemployment, employment instability, absenteeism, presenteeism, decreased work productivity, and decreased worker wellbeing) [73] could also have been taken into consideration. Also, because of the cross-sectional design and the small size of some of the subgroups established for comparative purposes, the results’ interpretations should be made with caution. For example, the age range has been dichotomized in order to facilitate statistical analysis with more representative group sizes. Nevertheless, being closer to the age of retirement could be an important factor to consider more carefully in future research. Also, future research with longitudinal designs is needed, that study other variables that might be playing a role in the HRQOL such as rehabilitation programs that some cancer survivors may undergo for improving their QOL, as well as deepening into the variety of occupational difficulties that cancer survivors may face and, finally, identifying factors that hinder having a job in order to establish high-risk subgroups. Given that the care for employment outstands as an essential aspect of comprehensive cancer survivorship care, the early detection of such risk groups would allow for prioritising efforts regarding their employment status and contributing successfully to the quality of life of cancer survivors.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


  1. Tit A, Camilla A, Angela A, Marco A, Gianni A, Barceló AM, et al. European guide on quality improvement in comprehensive cancer control. 2017. Accesed 15 May 2022.

  2. Bielik J, Bystricky B, Hoffmannova K, Melus V, Matisakova I. Quality of life and ability to work in ovarian cancer patients in Slovakia. Neoplasma. 2020;67(2):389–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boelhouwer IG, Vermeer W, van Vuuren T. The associations between late effects of cancer treatment, work ability and job resources: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(2):147–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aaronson NK, Mattioli V, Minton O, Weis J, Johansen C, Dalton SO, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Stein KD, Alfano CM, Mehnert A, de Boer A. Beyond treatment–psychosocial and behavioural issues in cancer survivorship research and practice. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2014;12(1):54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mayer DK, Nasso SF, Earp JA. Defining cancer survivors, their needs, and perspectives on survivorship health care in the USA. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(1):e11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Jong M, Tamminga SJ, Frings-Dresen MH, de Boer AG. Quality of working life of cancer survivors: associations with health-and work-related variables. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(5):1475–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duijts SFA, Kieffer JM, van Muijen P, van der Beek AJ. Sustained employability and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors up to four years after diagnosis. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(2):174–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It’s not over when it’s over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors–a systematic review. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2010;40(2):163–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH, Yabroff KR, Alfano CM, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(5):363–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weaver KE, Forsythe LP, Reeve BB, Alfano CM, Rodriguez JL, Sabatino SA, Hawkins NA, Rowland JH. Mental and physical health–related quality of life among US cancer survivors: population estimates from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 2012;21(11):2108–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. El Haidari R, Abbas LA, Nerich V, Anota A. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer in the Middle East: a systematic review. Cancers. 2020;12(3):696.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Andreu Vaillo Y, Conchado Peiró A, Martinez Lopez P, Martinez Martinez MT, Moreno P, Arribas Alpuente L. Possible substantive improvements in the structure of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale? A study based on its Spanish version. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(6):1871–81.

  14. Akel R, El Darsa H, Anouti B, Mukherji D, Temraz S, Raslan R, Tfayli A, Assi H. Anxiety, depression and quality of life in breast cancer patients in the levant. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(10):2809.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Brenkman HJF, Tegels JJW, Ruurda JP, Luyer MDP, Kouwenhoven EA, Draaisma WA, et al. Factors influencing health-related quality of life after gastrectomy for cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(3):524–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Azam S, Eriksson M, Sjölander A, Gabrielson M, Hellgren R, Czene K, et al. Mammographic microcalcifications and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2021;125(5):759–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Maisarah S, Chan HK, Ah MR. Delayed presentation of colorectal cancer patients in Northern Malaysia: 11-year prevalence, associated factors and impact on survival. Int J Public Health Clin Sci. 2021;8(5):25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hechtner M, Krause M, König J, Appold S, Hornemann B, Singer S, Baumann M. Long-term quality of life in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with conventionally fractionated compared to hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy–Results of the randomized CHARTWEL trial. Radiother Oncol. 2018;126(2):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andreu Y, Martínez P, Soto-Rubio A, Pérez-Marín M, Cervantes A, Arribas L. Quality of life in cancer survivorship: sociodemographic and disease-related moderators. Eur J Cancer Care. 2022;31:e13692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Han KT, Kim SJ, Song H, Chun SY, Ok C, Kim JS, Park EC. Associations between quality of life and marital status in cancer patients and survivors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:5287–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arvey RD, Harpaz I, Liao H. Work centrality and post-award work behavior of lottery winners. J Psychol. 2004;138(5):404–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grillo PM, de Almeira DP, da Silva ÉRP. Job, career or calling: a qualitative exploration of the meaning of work among Brazilian undergraduate architecture students. Braz J Oper Prod Manag. 2021;18(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim K, Lee KS. Identification of the knowledge structure of cancer survivors’ return to work and quality of life: a text network analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hiltrop K, Heidkamp P, Breidenbach C, Kowalski C, Enders A, Pfaff H, et al. Involuntariness of job changes is related to less satisfaction with occupational development in long-term breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2022;16(2):397–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim YA, Yun YH, Chang YJ, Lee J, Kim MS, Lee HS, et al. Employment status and work-related difficulties in lung cancer survivors compared with the general population. Ann Surg. 2014;259(3):569–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaneko S, Noguchi H, Fu R, Kang C, Kawamura A, Amano S, et al. Differences in cancer patients’ work-cessation risk, based on gender and type of job: examination of middle-aged and older adults in super-aged Japan. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0227792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Paltrinieri S, Fugazzaro S, Bertozzi L, Bassi MC, Pellegrini M, Vicentini M, Mazzini E, Costi S. Return to work in European Cancer survivors: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(9):2983–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stone DS, Ganz PA, Pavlish C, Robbins WA. Young adult cancer survivors and work: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv Res Pract. 2017;11(6):765–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Verrill M, Wardley AM, Retzler J, Smith AB, Bottomley C, Ní Dhochartaigh S, et al. Health-related quality of life and work productivity in UK patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a cross-sectional study evaluating the relationships between disease and treatment stage. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):353.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wright P, Wilding S, Watson E, Downing A, Selby P, Hounsome L, Wagland R, Brewster DH, Huws D, Butcher H, Mottram R. Key factors associated with social distress after prostate cancer: Results from the United Kingdom life after prostate cancer diagnosis study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;60:201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vicente Pardo JM, López-Guillén García A. Cáncer en población trabajadora Incapacidad y riesgo de exclusión laboral y social. Med Segur Trabajo. 2018;64(253):354–78.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Risk Factors for Cancer - NCI 2015 Accessed on 13 May 2022

  33. de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Wroblewski K, Blinder V, Araújo FS, Hlubocky FJ, et al. Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: the validation of the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). Cancer. 2017;123(3):476–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mehnert A. Employment and work-related issues in cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77(2):109–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mehnert A, de Boer A, Feuerstein M. Employment challenges for cancer survivors. Cancer. 2013;119(Suppl 11):2151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. de Boer AGEM, Taskila T, Ojajärvi A, van Dijk FJH, Verbeek JHAM. Cancer survivors and unemployment: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. JAMA. 2009;301(7):753–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. de Moor JS, Alfano CM, Kent EE, Norton WE, Coughlan D, Roberts MC, et al. Recommendations for research and practice to improve work outcomes among cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(10):1041–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Dumas A, Vaz Luis I, Bovagnet T, El Mouhebb M, Di Meglio A, Pinto S, et al. Impact of breast cancer treatment on employment: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study (CANTO). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(7):734–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Firkins J, Hansen L, Driessnack M, Dieckmann N. Quality of life in “chronic” cancer survivors: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv. 2020;14(4):504–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Molina R, Feliu J. La reinserción laboral: un nuevo reto en el paciente con cáncer. Psicooncología. 2011;8(1):45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. de Moor JS, Alfano CM, Kent EE, Norton WE, Coughlan D, Roberts MC, Grimes M, Bradley CJ. Recommendations for research and practice to improve work outcomes among cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(10):1041–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Yuan CM, Wang CC, Wu WT, Ho CL, Chen WL. Risk factors for return to work in colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer Med. 2021;10(12):3938–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Spelten ER, Sprangers MAG, Verbeek JHAM. Factors reported to influence the return to work of cancer survivors: a literature review. Psychooncology. 2002;11(2):124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stanton AL, Bower JE. Psychological adjustment in breast cancer survivors. In: Improving outcomes for breast cancer survivors. Springer: Cham; 2015. p. 231–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Avis NE, Smith KW, McGraw S, Smith RG, Petronis VM, Carver CS. Assessing quality of life in adult cancer survivors (QLACS). Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):1007–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Escobar A, Trujillo-Martín MD, Rueda A, Pérez-Ruiz E, Avis NE, Bilbao A. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire: application in a sample of short-term survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Loewenthal KM, Lewis CA. An Introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2nd ed. Psychology Press; 2001.

  48. Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. Supporting «work-related goals» rather than «return to work» after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies. Psychooncology. 2013;22(6):1208–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Andreu Y, Martinez P, Soto-Rubio A, Fernández S, Bosch C, Cervantes A. Colorectal cancer survival: prevalence of psychosocial distress and unmet supportive care needs. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(2):1483–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Psychosocial/survivorship issues in breast cancer: are we doing better. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):dju335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Petrovic P, Petersson KM, Ghatan PH, Stone-Elander S, Ingvar M. Pain-related cerebral activation is altered by a distracting cognitive task. Pain. 2000;85(1–2):19–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Vayr F, Montastruc M, Savall F, Despas F, Judic E, Basso M, Dunet C, Dalenc F, Laurent G, Soulat JM, Herin F. Work adjustments and employment among breast cancer survivors: a French prospective study. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(1):185–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Westby RP, Berg CJ, Leach C. Gender, race, BMI, and social support in relation to the health-related quality of life of cancer survivors: a report from the American Cancer Society’s Study of Cancer Survivors II (SCS-II). Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):409–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jensen RE, Arora NK, Bellizzi KM, Rowland JH, Hamilton AS, Aziz NM, et al. Health-related quality of life among survivors of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2013;119(3):672–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Annunziata MA, Muzzatti B, Flaiban C, Gipponi K, Carnaghi C, Tralongo P, et al. Long-term quality of life profile in oncology: a comparison between cancer survivors and the general population. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(2):651–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Muzzatti B, Flaiban C, Surbone A, Annunziata MA. Quality of life profile in Italian long-term cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):959–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Andreu Y, Soto-Rubio A, Ramos-Campos M, Escriche-Saura A, Martínez M, Gavilá J. Impact of hormone therapy side effects on health-related quality of life, distress, and well-being of breast cancer survivors. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):18673.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. van der Poel MWM, Oerlemans S, Schouten HC, van de Poll-Franse LV. Elderly multiple myeloma patients experience less deterioration in health-related quality of life than younger patients compared to a normative population: a study from the population-based profiles registry. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(4):651–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. The Genetics of Cancer - NCI. 2015. Disponible en: [citado 12 de febrero de 2023].

  60. Tit A, Camilla A, Angela A, Marco A, Gianni A, Barceló AM, et al. European guide on quality improvement in comprehensive cancer control. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rahner N, Steinke V. Hereditary cancer syndromes. Dtsch Ärztebl Int. 2008;105(41):706–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Harper P. Practical Genetic Counselling. 6th ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2004. p. 331.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Götze H, Taubenheim S, Dietz A, Lordick F, Mehnert A. Comorbid conditions and health-related quality of life in long-term cancer survivors-associations with demographic and medical characteristics. J Cancer Surviv Res Pract. 2018;12(5):712–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lagergren P, Schandl A, Aaronson NK, Adami HO, de Lorenzo F, Denis L, et al. Cancer survivorship: an integral part of Europe’s research agenda. Mol Oncol. 2019;13(3):624–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Tevaarwerk A, Denlinger CS, Sanft T, Ansbaugh SM, Armenian S, Baker KS, Broderick G, Day A, Demark-Wahnefried W, Dickinson K, Friedman DL. Survivorship, version 12021: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2021;19(6):676–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Alleaume C, Paraponaris A, Bendiane MK, Peretti-Watel P, Bouhnik AD. The positive effect of workplace accommodations on the continued employment of cancer survivors five years after diagnosis. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(9):4435–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bradley CJ, Brown KL, Haan M, Glasgow RE, Newman LS, Rabin B, et al. Cancer survivorship and employment: intersection of oral agents, changing workforce dynamics, and employers’ perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(12):1292–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. de Boer AG, Taskila TK, Tamminga SJ, Feuerstein M, Frings-Dresen MHW, Verbeek JH. Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(9):7569.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lamore K, Dubois T, Rothe U, Leonardi M, Girard I, Manuwald U, et al. Return to work interventions for cancer survivors: a systematic review and a methodological critique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(8):1343.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Cohen M, Yagil D, Carel R. A multidisciplinary working model for promoting return to work of cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(9):5151–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Feuerstein M, Todd BL, Moskowitz MC, Bruns GL, Stoler MR, Nassif T, et al. Work in cancer survivors: a model for practice and research. J Cancer Surviv Res Pract. 2010;4(4):415–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bains M, Yarker J, Amir Z, Wynn P, Munir F. Helping cancer survivors return to work: what providers tell us about the challenges in assisting cancer patients with work questions. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cadiz D, Brady G, Rineer JR, Truxillo D. A review and synthesis of the work ability literature. 2018 Accessed 13 May 2022.

Download references


To the patients and the clinicians that participated in this study.


Author Y. Andreu is supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Government of Spain [Grant number PSI2013-45905-R]. Author A. Soto-Rubio is supported by the European Social Fund and the Valencian Government [Post-doctoral grant number APOSTD/2019/192].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors whose names appear on the submission made a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work. R.R. and A.G-C. particularly contributed to the acquisition of the data. S.M., Y.A. and A.S-R. particularly contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. Moreover, all authors have drafted the work and approved the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Picazo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andreu, Y., Picazo, C., Murgui, S. et al. Exploring the independent association of employment status to cancer survivors’ health-related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes 21, 44 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: