Skip to main content

Table 6 OHC professionals’, re-integration coaches’ and job hunting officers’ satisfaction with the tailored RTW program

From: Offering a tailored return to work program to cancer survivors with job loss: a process evaluation

Topics OHC professionals (N=68)a Re-integration coaches (N=52)a Job hunting officers (N=48)a
Satisfaction (score range 1–5)b Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
 To what extent are you satisfied with:
  -Protocol for delivering the program N/A 3.8 (0.4) 3.7 (0.8)
  -Instructions from my own organization N/A 4.4 (0.5) 4.0 (0.5)
  -Options to deviate within the program protocol N/A 3.9 (0.6) 3.7 (1.0)
  -Options for tailoring the program to participants’ needs N/A 3.5 (0.7) N/A
  -Communication with a contact person within your organization N/A 4.0 (0.6) 3.7 (0.6)
  -Communication with the researchers N/A 3.6 (0.5) 3.6 (0.7)
  -Communication with the OHC professionals during the program N/A 3.0 (0.8) 3.1 (0.8)
  -Transfer from the re-integration coach to the job hunting officers N/A 3.7 (1.1) 3.8 (0.6)
  -Communication with the job hunting officers N/A 3.3 (1.3) N/A
  -Communication with the re-integration coach N/A N/A 3.8 (0.5)
  - Program completion and final contact with the participant N/A 4.3 (0.6) 3.6 (0.8)
  -General information about the program through the SSA 3.7 (1.0) N/A N/A
  -Information about your patient participating in the program 3.6 (0.9) N/A N/A
  -Opportunities to deliberate with the researchers 3.4 (0.8) N/A N/A
  -Information regarding the content of your patients’ program 3.5 (0.9) N/A N/A
  -Opportunities to deliberate with the re-integration coach 3.2 (1.0) N/A N/A
  -Final report from the re-integration coach 3.5 (1.1) N/A N/A
  -Information about your patients’ transfer to job hunting agencies 3.3 (1.0) N/A N/A
  -Opportunities to deliberate with the job hunting officers 3.2 (1.0) N/A N/A
  -Final report from the job hunting officers 3.4 (1.0) N/A N/A
Overall satisfaction score 3.4 (0.2) 3.8 (0.4) 3.7 (0.2)
Experience statements (score range 1–5)c Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
  -The program fit well into my organization 3.7 (0.8) 4.5 (0.6) 4.4 (0.7)
  -Before the program started, the program objective was clear to me 3.3 (1.0) 4.6 (0.5) 4.4 (0.6)
  -Delivering the program was similar to my usual job demands N/A 4.5 (0.6) 4.1 (1.0)
  -Cooperating with the program agreed with my usual work tasks 3.7 (0.7) N/A N/A
  -Before the program started, I was excited about it N/A 4.7 (0.5) 4.6 (0.5)
  -It was easy to follow the program protocol N/A 3.9 (0.7) 3.5 (1.1)
  -In hindsight, it was useful for me to participate in the program N/A 4.2 (0.8) 4.2 (0.6)
  -I was able to deliver my usual care alongside the program 3.6 (0.8) N/A N/A
  -In the future, I would work with such a program again 3.8 (0.8) 4.6 (0.6) 4.5 (0.7)
Overall experience score 3.6 (0.2) 4.4 (0.3) 4.2 (0.4)
Time consumption of the program N (%) N (%) N (%)
 Delivering, or cooperating with, the program took up extra work time:
  -Yes and I did mind that 7 (10.3) 3 (5.8) 1 (2.1)
  -Yes but I did not mind that 12 (17.6) 41 (78.8) 45 (93.8)
  -Neutral 17 (25.0) 9 (15.4) 1 (2.1)
  -No 29 (42.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.1)
  1. aOne process evaluation questionnaire was completed per participant, therefore, the N per group of professionals reflects the number of times a questionnaire was completed by a professional from that group. Also, due to missing values or rounding differences, N and percentages may approach or exceed the total N or 100 %; bA higher score reflects a higher level of satisfaction; cA higher score reflects a higher level of agreement with the statement
\