Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

Dr Naomi Algeo; David Mockler; Stacey Braddish; Matthew Barrington; Niamh O'Sullivan; Joy Lewis; Dr Scheryll Alken; Dr Peter McCarthy; Joanne O'Mahony; Kathleen Bennett; Claire McCall; Amy Nolan; Catherine Buckley; Dr Sonya Collier; Louise Mullen; Dr Nina Orfali; Aoife O'Gorman; Ruth McMenamin; Denise Dockery; Dr Nickola Pallin; Deirdre Connolly

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1

Home Browse Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

19

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Dr Naomi Algeo ^1,2, David Mockler³, Stacey Braddish⁴, [...] Matthew Barrington⁴, Niamh O'Sullivan^2,5, Joy Lewis^2,5, Dr Scheryll Alken^2,5, Dr Peter McCarthy^2,5, Joanne O'Mahony^2,5, Kathleen Bennett⁶, Claire McCall⁷, Amy Nolan⁷, Catherine Buckley², Dr Sonya Collier², Louise Mullen⁸, Dr Nina Orfali², Aoife O'Gorman², Ruth McMenamin⁵, Denise Dockery⁵, Dr Nickola Pallin¹, Deirdre Connolly^1,2

Dr Naomi Algeo ^1,2, David Mockler³, [...] Stacey Braddish⁴, Matthew Barrington⁴, Niamh O'Sullivan^2,5, Joy Lewis^2,5, Dr Scheryll Alken^2,5, Dr Peter McCarthy^2,5, Joanne O'Mahony^2,5, Kathleen Bennett⁶, Claire McCall⁷, Amy Nolan⁷, Catherine Buckley², Dr Sonya Collier², Louise Mullen⁸, Dr Nina Orfali², Aoife O'Gorman², Ruth McMenamin⁵, Denise Dockery⁵, Dr Nickola Pallin¹, Deirdre Connolly^1,2

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
² Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, St James's Hospital, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
³ Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
⁴ Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Dublin, Ireland
⁵ CHI at Crumlin, Children's Health Ireland, Cooley Road, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland
⁶ Data Science Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Division of Population Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
⁷ Children, Adolescents and Young Adults (CAYA), Irish Cancer Society, Dublin, Ireland
⁸ National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland

Dr Naomi Algeo
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

David Mockler
Roles: Investigation

Stacey Braddish
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Matthew Barrington
Roles: Conceptualization

Niamh O'Sullivan
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology

Joy Lewis
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Scheryll Alken
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Peter McCarthy
Roles: Conceptualization

Joanne O'Mahony
Roles: Conceptualization

Kathleen Bennett
Roles: Conceptualization

Claire McCall
Roles: Conceptualization

Amy Nolan
Roles: Conceptualization

Catherine Buckley
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Sonya Collier
Roles: Conceptualization

Louise Mullen
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Nina Orfali
Roles: Conceptualization

Aoife O'Gorman
Roles: Conceptualization

Ruth McMenamin
Roles: Conceptualization

Denise Dockery
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Nickola Pallin
Roles: Investigation

Deirdre Connolly
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Objective

This scoping review will explore and chart the evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis.

Introduction

The number of newly diagnosed AYAs with cancer is increasing and so too is the number of AYAs living with and beyond cancer. In line with missed schooling and long-term side-effects of treatment, it is unsurprising that this group may under-perform academically and be at higher risk of unemployment in comparison to their peers. Developing an overview of existing interventions to support education and/or employment for this cohort, is therefore important.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies that explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for AYAs (aged 15–39 years) post-cancer diagnosis. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical or multidisciplinary (combination of vocational, psychosocial and/or physical) in nature. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies, case studies, observational studies, reports and theses will be included.

Methods

This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched include EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline (OVID), CINAHL, and PsycInfo, with no limitation on publication date. Grey literature will be searched, limited to the first 100 searches on Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts will be screened and two independent reviewers will review identified fill-texts. A data extraction tool will be used for data extraction.

Keywords

cancer survivorship; employment; quality of life; reintegration; schooling

Corresponding author: Dr Naomi Algeo

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work is funded by the Irish Cancer Society Research Grant AHP22ALG. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Irish Cancer Society.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Algeo DN et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Algeo DN, Mockler D, Braddish S et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1) First published: 24 Mar 2025, 8:44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1) Latest published: 24 Mar 2025, 8:44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1)

Introduction

Internationally, the considered age range of Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivors is 15–39 (Desandes & Stark, 2016). The number of newly diagnosed AYA cancers is increasing and so too is the number of AYA living with and beyond cancer, resulting in heightened focus on survivorship needs. This recent paradigm shift in survivorship care has focused on optimising quality of life for those living with and beyond cancer, including reintegration into education and employment (Vaz-Luis et al., 2022).

Physical and psychosocial sequalae experienced by AYA cancer survivors during and after cancer treatment include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, and depression (Baker & Syrjala, 2018; Ikonomidou, 2018; LaRosa et al., 2017; Lea et al., 2020; Mittal et al., 2022; van Deuren et al., 2020; Zebrack, 2011). It is commonly reported that this cohort will face ‘overwhelming’ physical and cognitive demands on their re-entry to education and employment (Brauer et al., 2017). Challenges associated with education reintegration include expedited return to keep up with peers, limited training for educators on how to best support reintegration, and the impact of altered body image during this adolescent stage (Brauer et al., 2017; Fardell et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2015). While there remains partial overlap of physical and psychosocial barriers to employment reintegration for AYAs, other factors can influence this transition including returning to dependency on parents, fear of potential workplace discrimination, and workplace accommodations (Fardell et al., 2018; Husson et al., 2018; Ketterl et al., 2019), although these can vary depending on societal context (e.g., country-specific legislation/entitlements).

In line with missed schooling and long-term side-effects of treatment, it is unsurprising that this group may under-perform academically in comparison to their peers, which in turn can lead to employment and financial difficulties in later life (Elsbernd et al., 2018). Furthermore, an international report for survivors of children, adolescents and young adults (CAYA) cancer highlighted evidence that this cohort are at higher risk of lower educational achievement and unemployment in later life (Devine et al., 2022). Return to education and employment is therefore often cited as challenging by AYA cancer survivors (Barrett et al., 2018; Ikonomidou, 2018).

The European Code of Cancer recently identified the right of all cancer survivors to fully resume educational, economic, and social roles (Lawler et al., 2021). However, a gap in current research includes education and employment reintegration, where AYAs self-identified research on return to education and work as a top priority in a UK research priority-setting exercise (Aldiss et al., 2019). This has also been recognised internationally where the need to focus on education and career development for AYA cancer survivors has been cited as a core priority (Altherr et al., 2023; National Cancer Control Programme, 2022). Therefore, supports to empower AYAs who have had cancer to stay or return to education and/or work is an important issue for both AYAs and society. With the view to developing education and work-related supports for AYAs with cancer in the Republic of Ireland, a scoping review of relevant interventions in relation to type, content, evaluation and impact, will be completed.

Methods

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). This scoping review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) database on 21^st February 2025 and reporting will be guided in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement (Moher et al., 2015). This protocol will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews to ensure a systematic methodology that can be replicated. In addition, the scoping review framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) is used to structure this protocol, which suggests five steps: (i) identifying the research question, (ii) identifying relevant studies, (iii) selecting studies, (iv) charting the data, and (v) collating, summarising, analysing, and presenting results. The planned scoping review will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018).

Stage one: Identifying the research question

The main research question, guided using the Population-Concept-Context framework (Peters et al., 2020), is: What is the available evidence regarding non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs? In this instance, population refers to AYAs (aged 15–39 years inclusive) who have had a cancer diagnosis, context refers to interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs, and context refers to any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) in any geographical location. The scoping review protocol has been reviewed by a patient and public involvement representative (who is also a co-author) on the research steering committee who has also informed objectives of this review.

The scoping review objectives include:

1. To identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work.
2. To identify and summarise measures used to test the impact of these type of interventions on education and/or work and other outcomes.
3. To identify the most commonly used theoretical frameworks underpinning programmes that support return to education and/or work for AYAs.
4. To identify and summarise the reported impact of non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.

The aim of this scoping review is to explore and chart the evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for AYAs.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria will be limited to peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed studies and programmes that focus on interventions/programmes that support education and/or employment (concept) for AYAs after a cancer diagnosis (population), across any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) (context). This scoping review will consider both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomised control trials, non-randomised control trials, before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies will be considered for inclusion. This review will also consider descriptive observational study designs, including case series, individual case reports, and descriptive cross-sectional studies for inclusion. Qualitative studies will also be considered that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, and action research. Systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will also be considered, depending on the research question. Text and opinion papers will also be considered for inclusion in this scoping review.

Population: This scoping review will consider studies of rehabilitation interventions and support programmes that include AYAs (aged 15–39 years inclusive) who have had a cancer diagnosis. The age range considered for AYAs can vary from country to country. For example, in the Republic of Ireland, the recognised age range for this cohort is 16–24 years (Alken et al., 2020). However, for the purpose of this review and to yield a breadth of supports, the age range of 15–39 years which is recognised internationally will be considered (Desandes & Stark, 2016).

Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical or multidisciplinary (combination of vocational, psychosocial and/or physical) in nature.

Context: The aim of this scoping review is to explore the breadth of current literature published on interventions and support programmes that measure education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Therefore, studies conducted in any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) in any geographical location will be considered.

Stage two: Identifying relevant studies

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished sources. As recommended in the JBI guidelines, a three-step search strategy will be used. First, a broad search of databases (including EMBASE, Medline (OVID), and CINAHL), using keywords for cancer, education, employment, rehabilitation, adolescents and young adults will be completed. Second, words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant manuscripts and index terms used to describe these will be used to inform a full search strategy. The medical librarian (DM) will develop a search strategy in collaboration with the lead author (NA). The search strategy will be adapted for each database and information source. Databases that will be searched as part of this scoping review include EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline (OVID), CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Google Scholar will be searched for grey literature, limited to the first 100 searches. Third, the reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. The searches will be conducted by NA and DM. Studies published in English will be included, as the resources for translation are not available and no limitation will be set on date. In addition, the lead author will consult the research steering committee, of whom all are key AYA stakeholders, regarding their knowledge on any additional grey literature. The definitive search strategy and results will be reported in detail in the published scoping review.

Stage three: Selecting studies

Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded to Covidence and duplicates removed. Prior to screening, two independent reviewers (NA and NP) will complete pilot testing of eligibility criteria. A sample of 25 titles/abstracts selected at random will be selected and screened. The team will meet to discuss any discrepancies and amend eligibility criteria as needed. Screening will commence when at least 75% agreement is achieved (Peters et al., 2020). Titles and abstracts will be screened by the first author (NA) for assessment against inclusion criteria. The full texts of selected studies will then be reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers (NA and NP). Where uncertainty occurs, a third reviewer (DC) will be consulted and resolved through discussion. Full text studies will be excluded if they do not meet the inclusion criteria and reasons for exclusion recorded. The search results will be reported in a PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021).

Step four: Charting the data

Data extraction will focus on identifying and charting data relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. A data charting form will be developed using Microsoft Excel. This will be developed using the JBI data extraction tool and will be guided by the Intervention Development and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (Hoffmann et al., 2014), which systematically describes interventions and their characteristics to support future replication. Two reviewers will pilot the data charting form by independently extracting data from the first ten included studies. They will then meet to confirm consistency in their approach in data extraction as well as establishing suitability of the data charting form. The form may be subject to amendment as familiarity with selected studies necessitates a need for capturing further information. Where uncertainty occurs, a third reviewer (DC) will be consulted and resolved through discussion.

The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources:

1. Author
2. Title
3. Year of publication
4. Evidence source details
5. Country of origin
6. Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose
7. Research design (if applicable)
8. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
9. Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age)
10. Sample size (if applicable)
11. Intervention format (online, in-person, written)
12. Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.)
13. Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.)
14. Intervention content
15. Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable)
16. Theoretical framework (if applicable)
17. Outcomes measured (if applicable)

Data will be extracted by the lead author (NA) and verified by a second (NP).

Step five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data

The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist. Results will be accompanied by a narrative summary, aligning with the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from this protocol will be explained in the final scoping review.

Discussion

Globally the number of newly diagnosed AYA cancers is increasing and so too is the number of AYA living with and beyond cancer. Physical and psychosocial sequalae of cancer and its treatment can impact on AYAs reintegrating back to education and/or employment following cancer treatment. A gap in current research includes education and employment reintegration, where AYAs self-identified research on return to education and work as a top priority in a UK research priority-setting exercise (Aldiss et al., 2019). Therefore, the exploration of factors impacting on successful return to education and employment for AYA cancer survivors is warranted.

To our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to focus on interventions that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. This protocol will include a comprehensive search of peer reviewed and grey literature and will identify, map and summarise existing literature describing supports programmes for AYAs that measure an education or employment outcome.

Ethical considerations

As scoping review methodology involves reviewing and collecting data from publicly accessible material, this study does not require ethical approval.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Author’s contributions

The protocol was designed by NA, DC and SB. The drafting of the manuscript was completed by NA, SB and DC. NA and DC approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Irish Cancer Society for their support of this project.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Aldiss S, Fern LA, Phillips RS, et al.: Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(8): e028119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Alken S, Owens C, Gilham C, et al.: Survival of childhood and Adolescent/Young Adult (AYA) cancer patients in Ireland during 1994-2013: comparisons by age. Ir J Med Sci. 2020; 189(4): 1223–1236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Altherr A, Bolliger C, Kaufmann M, et al.: Education, Employment, and financial outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors-a systematic review. Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(10): 8720–8762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text
Baker KS, Syrjala KL: Long-term complications in Adolescent and Young Adult Leukemia survivors. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018; 2018(1): 146–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Barrett P, Mullen L, McCarthy C: Survivorship after childhood cancer - health needs assessment, 2018. National Cancer Control Programme: Dublin, 2018. Reference Source
Brauer ER, Pieters HC, Ganz PA, et al.: "From snail mode to rocket ship mode": Adolescents and Young Adults' experiences of returning to work and school after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6(4): 551–559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Desandes E, Stark DP: Epidemiology of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer in Europe. Prog Tumor Res. 2016; 43: 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Devine KA, Christen S, Mulder RL, et al.: Recommendations for the surveillance of education and employment outcomes in survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult cancer: a report from the International late effects of childhood cancer guideline harmonization group. Cancer. 2022; 128(13): 2405–2419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Elsbernd A, Pedersen KJ, Boisen KA, et al.: "On your own": Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors' experience of managing return to secondary or higher education in Denmark. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7(5): 618–625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Fardell JE, Wakefield CE, Patterson P, et al.: Narrative review of the educational, vocational, and financial needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer: recommendations for support and research. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7(2): 143–147. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al.: Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014; 348: g1687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Husson O, Huijgens PC, van der Graaf WTA: Psychosocial challenges and health-related quality of life of Adolescents and Young Adults with hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2018; 132(4): 385–392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Ikonomidou C: Chemotherapy and the pediatric brain. Mol Cell Pediatr. 2018; 5(1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ketterl TG, Syrjala KL, Casillas J, et al.: Lasting effects of cancer and its treatment on employment and finances in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors. Cancer. 2019; 125(11): 1908–1917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
LaRosa KN, Stern M, Bleck J, et al.: Adolescent and Young Adult patients with cancer: perceptions of care. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6(4): 512–518. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lawler M, Oliver K, Gijssels S, et al.: The European code of cancer practice. J Cancer Policy. 2021; 28: 100282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lea S, Martins A, Fern LA, et al.: The support and information needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer when active treatment ends. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1): 697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mittal N, Saha A, Avutu V, et al.: Shared barriers and facilitators to enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults on Cancer Clinical Trials. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1): 3875. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP), HSE: Framework for the care and support of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer in Ireland: 2021-2026. 2022. Reference Source
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thompson AL, Christiansen HL, Elam M, et al.: Academic continuity and school reentry support as a standard of care in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015; 62 Suppl 5(Suppl 5): S805–S817. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
van Deuren S, Boonstra A, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, et al.: Severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 3(3): CD012681. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Vaz-Luis I, Masiero M, Cavaletti G, et al.: ESMO expert consensus statements on cancer survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33(11): 1119–1133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
² Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, St James's Hospital, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
³ Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
⁴ Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Dublin, Ireland
⁵ CHI at Crumlin, Children's Health Ireland, Cooley Road, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland
⁶ Data Science Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Division of Population Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
⁷ Children, Adolescents and Young Adults (CAYA), Irish Cancer Society, Dublin, Ireland
⁸ National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland

Dr Naomi Algeo
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

David Mockler
Roles: Investigation

Stacey Braddish
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Matthew Barrington
Roles: Conceptualization

Niamh O'Sullivan
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology

Joy Lewis
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Scheryll Alken
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Peter McCarthy
Roles: Conceptualization

Joanne O'Mahony
Roles: Conceptualization

Kathleen Bennett
Roles: Conceptualization

Claire McCall
Roles: Conceptualization

Amy Nolan
Roles: Conceptualization

Catherine Buckley
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Sonya Collier
Roles: Conceptualization

Louise Mullen
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Nina Orfali
Roles: Conceptualization

Aoife O'Gorman
Roles: Conceptualization

Ruth McMenamin
Roles: Conceptualization

Denise Dockery
Roles: Conceptualization

Dr Nickola Pallin
Roles: Investigation

Deirdre Connolly
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work is funded by the Irish Cancer Society Research Grant AHP22ALG. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Irish Cancer Society.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 24 Mar 2025, 8:44

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1

Copyright

© 2025 Algeo DN et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

145

downloads

19

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Algeo DN, Mockler D, Braddish S et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025

Views

4

Reviewer Report 27 May 2025

Suja Somanadhan, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r47030

Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality ... Continue reading

Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality and rigour of the protocol. Addressing these points will enhance your work's transparency, methodological robustness, and impact.

The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters.

Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour.

Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology.

PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews.

Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 24 Mar 25	read

Suja Somanadhan, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

27 May 2025 | for Version 1

Suja Somanadhan, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality and rigour of the protocol. Addressing these points will enhance your work's transparency, methodological robustness, and impact.

The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters.

Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour.

Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology.

PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews.

Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Aldiss S, Fern LA, Phillips RS, et al.: Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(8): e028119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] Alken S, Owens C, Gilham C, et al.: Survival of childhood and Adolescent/Young Adult (AYA) cancer patients in Ireland during 1994-2013: comparisons by age. Ir J Med Sci. 2020; 189(4): 1223–1236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] Altherr A, Bolliger C, Kaufmann M, et al.: Education, Employment, and financial outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors-a systematic review. Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(10): 8720–8762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[5] Baker KS, Syrjala KL: Long-term complications in Adolescent and Young Adult Leukemia survivors. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018; 2018(1): 146–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] Barrett P, Mullen L, McCarthy C: Survivorship after childhood cancer - health needs assessment, 2018. National Cancer Control Programme: Dublin, 2018. Reference Source

[7] Brauer ER, Pieters HC, Ganz PA, et al.: "From snail mode to rocket ship mode": Adolescents and Young Adults' experiences of returning to work and school after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6(4): 551–559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] Desandes E, Stark DP: Epidemiology of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer in Europe. Prog Tumor Res. 2016; 43: 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] Devine KA, Christen S, Mulder RL, et al.: Recommendations for the surveillance of education and employment outcomes in survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult cancer: a report from the International late effects of childhood cancer guideline harmonization group. Cancer. 2022; 128(13): 2405–2419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] Elsbernd A, Pedersen KJ, Boisen KA, et al.: "On your own": Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors' experience of managing return to secondary or higher education in Denmark. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7(5): 618–625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] Fardell JE, Wakefield CE, Patterson P, et al.: Narrative review of the educational, vocational, and financial needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer: recommendations for support and research. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7(2): 143–147. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al.: Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014; 348: g1687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Husson O, Huijgens PC, van der Graaf WTA: Psychosocial challenges and health-related quality of life of Adolescents and Young Adults with hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2018; 132(4): 385–392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Ikonomidou C: Chemotherapy and the pediatric brain. Mol Cell Pediatr. 2018; 5(1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] Ketterl TG, Syrjala KL, Casillas J, et al.: Lasting effects of cancer and its treatment on employment and finances in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors. Cancer. 2019; 125(11): 1908–1917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] LaRosa KN, Stern M, Bleck J, et al.: Adolescent and Young Adult patients with cancer: perceptions of care. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6(4): 512–518. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] Lawler M, Oliver K, Gijssels S, et al.: The European code of cancer practice. J Cancer Policy. 2021; 28: 100282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] Lea S, Martins A, Fern LA, et al.: The support and information needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer when active treatment ends. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1): 697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] Mittal N, Saha A, Avutu V, et al.: Shared barriers and facilitators to enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults on Cancer Clinical Trials. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1): 3875. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP), HSE: Framework for the care and support of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer in Ireland: 2021-2026. 2022. Reference Source

[21] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] Thompson AL, Christiansen HL, Elam M, et al.: Academic continuity and school reentry support as a standard of care in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015; 62 Suppl 5(Suppl 5): S805–S817. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] van Deuren S, Boonstra A, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, et al.: Severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 3(3): CD012681. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] Vaz-Luis I, Masiero M, Cavaletti G, et al.: ESMO expert consensus statements on cancer survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33(11): 1119–1133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

Objective

Introduction

Inclusion Criteria

Methods

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Stage one: Identifying the research question

Stage two: Identifying relevant studies

Stage three: Selecting studies

Step four: Charting the data

Step five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data

Discussion

Ethical considerations

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Author’s contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

Objective

Introduction

Inclusion Criteria

Methods

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Stage one: Identifying the research question

Stage two: Identifying relevant studies

Stage three: Selecting studies

Step four: Charting the data

Step five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data

Discussion

Ethical considerations

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Author’s contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!