Figures (0)  Tables (10)
    • Code Gender Age Length of employment (years) Education attainment Specialist field
      1 Woman 35 10 Bachelor's degree Nursing management
      2 Man 42 15 Master's degree Clinical nursing
      3 Woman 48 20 PhD degree Nursing education
      4 Woman 38 10 Master's degree Clinical nursing
      5 Man 56 25 Master's degree Nursing education
      6 Woman 37 10 Bachelor's degree Nursing education
      7 Woman 45 18 Master's degree Nursing management
      8 Man 40 12 Bachelor's degree Nursing management
      9 Woman 50 22 Master's degree Clinical nursing
      10 Man 48 20 Master's degree Nursing management
      11 Woman 40 12 PhD degree Medical oncology
      12 Man 52 23 PhD degree Medical oncology
      13 Woman 39 11 Bachelor's degree Clinical nursing
      14 Woman 36 10 Bachelor's degree Nursing management
      15 Man 44 16 Master's degree Nursing management

      Table 1. 

      The basic information of experts (n = 15).

    • Characteristics EFA frequency (%)
      n = 302      		 CFA frequency (%)
      n = 305
      Gender Man 180 (59.60%) 120 (39.34%)
      Woman 122 (40.40%) 185 (60.66%)
      Age Under 30 7 (2.32%) 11 (3.49%)
      31−40 33 (10.93%) 77 (25.19%)
      41−50 139 (46.02%) 143 (46.73%)
      Over 50 123 (40.73%) 74 (24.59%)
      Education Junior high school and below 128 (42.38%) 24 (7.87%)
      High school or specialized 102 (33.78%) 153 (50.16%)
      College and above 72 (23.84%) 128 (41.97%)
      Marital status Unmarried 8 (2.65%) 70 (22.95%)
      Married 294 (97.35%) 235 (77.05%)
      Experience of caring for cancer patients Have 249 (82.45%) 104 (34.10%)
      Haven't 53 (17.55%) 201 (65.90%)

      Table 2. 

      The basic information of participants for EFA and CFA.

    • Code Age Specialist field Professional title Education attainment Length of employment
      1 47 Clinical medicine Chief physician Master's degree 22
      2 47 Clinical medicine Deputy chief physician PhD degree 20
      3 49 Clinical nursing Chief nurse Master's degree 25
      4 44 Clinical nursing Deputy chief nurse Bachelor's degree 20
      5 45 Clinical nursing Deputy chief nurse Bachelor's degree 23
      6 44 Clinical nursing Senior nurse Bachelor's degree 20

      Table 3. 

      Basic information of experts (n = 6).

    • ltem Expert number I-CVI S-CVI
      1 2 3 4 5 6
      1 3 3 4 3 4 4 1 0.96
      2 4 4 4 4 3 4 1
      3 4 3 2 4 3 3 0.83
      4 3 4 4 4 3 4 1
      5 4 4 4 2 3 3 0.83
      6 4 3 4 2 4 3 0.83
      7 3 3 3 4 4 4 1
      8 3 3 3 4 3 4 1
      9 3 3 3 3 3 4 1
      10 3 4 3 4 3 4 1
      11 3 4 3 3 4 4 1
      12 3 3 3 4 3 3 1
      13 3 3 3 4 3 3 1
      14 4 4 3 3 3 4 1
      15 3 3 4 3 3 3 1
      16 3 3 4 4 4 4 1
      17 4 3 3 4 3 3 1
      18 4 3 4 4 3 3 1
      19 4 2 3 3 4 4 0.83
      20 3 4 3 3 4 4 1
      21 4 4 3 3 3 4 1
      22 2 4 3 3 3 4 0.83
      23 4 4 3 3 4 3 1
      24 3 3 3 3 4 3 1
      25 4 3 4 4 4 3 1
      26 4 4 4 3 4 3 1
      27 3 4 4 4 4 4 1
      28 4 4 4 3 3 3 1

      Table 4. 

      Content validity of the questionnaire.

    • ltem Factors
      1 2 3 4 5 6
      II1 0.119 0.116 0.092 0.788 0.022 0.075
      II2 0.023 0.114 0.106 0.808 0.097 0.037
      II3 0.058 0.173 0.091 0.794 -0.020 0.112
      II4 0.078 0.114 0.167 0.789 0.131 0.073
      II6 0.053 0.134 0.750 0.102 0.138 0.112
      II7 0.129 0.064 0.805 0.099 0.148 0.098
      II8 0.100 0.100 0.824 0.106 0.047 0.044
      II9 0.134 0.137 0.786 0.153 0.039 0.039
      II10 0.796 0.079 0.063 0.053 -0.007 0.021
      II11 0.790 0.124 0.143 0.078 0.114 0.068
      II12 0.790 0.065 0.110 0.032 0.113 0.041
      II14 0.800 0.088 0.107 0.042 -0.035 0.092
      II15 0.773 0.049 0.048 0.098 0.152 0.157
      II16 0.774 0.140 0.013 0.034 0.040 0.038
      II17 0.131 0.815 0.091 0.172 0.090 0.050
      II18 0.094 0.801 0.151 0.043 0.071 0.132
      II19 0.093 0.816 0.044 0.119 0.045 0.141
      II20 0.133 0.806 0.049 0.112 0.063 0.120
      II21 0.083 0.810 0.161 0.143 0.028 0.056
      II23 0.094 0.126 0.184 0.050 0.833 0.085
      II24 0.107 0.043 0.099 0.118 0.825 0.111
      II25 0.082 0.071 0.063 0.039 0.848 0.066
      II26 0.160 0.158 0.168 0.124 0.107 0.793
      II27 0.094 0.152 0.094 0.111 0.092 0.815
      II28 0.085 0.123 0.026 0.054 0.075 0.858
      Bold values = item loadings (> 0.75).

      Table 5. 

      Rotated component matrix for exploratory factor analysis

    • ltem $\chi^2 $/df RMSEA SRMR IFI TLI CFI GFI
      Unmodified 4.518 0.108 0.134 0.650 0.590 0.644 0.697
      Modified 1.617 0.045 0.030 0.961 0.954 0.960 0.904
      Range < 3.00 < 0.05 < 0.05 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90
      $\chi^2 $/df is the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio; RMSEA is the root mean square error of approximation; SRMR is the standardised root mean square residuum; IFI is the incremental fit index; TLI is the Tucker-Lewis index; CFI is the comparative fit index; GFI is the goodness of fit index.

      Table 6. 

      Fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis model.

    • Code ltem Load values
      1 Cancer survivors not fully competent 0.652
      2 Cancer survivors less able to work than normal 0.774
      3 Cancer survivors can gradually return to work 0.794
      4 Cancer survivors should go back to an easy job 0.895
      5 Cancer survivors are prone to depression, which interferes with work 0.786
      6 Harmonious Colleague Relationships Help Cancer Survivors Stay Physically and Mentally Healthy 0.773
      7 Returning to work can lead to a worsening of the condition 0.912
      8 Survivors who are less ill and in better health should return to work 0.906
      9 Lack of policies and experience in social support for cancer survivors to return to work 0.734
      10 Managers don't know how to meet the needs of cancer survivors who want to maintain a balance between health and work
      (weighing work and health)      		 0.776
      11 Managers don't know how to keep the workload and performance of cancer survivors balanced 0.794
      12 Cancer survivors get more time off 0.737
      13 Colleagues should give more care to cancer survivors 0.757
      14 Managers should refrain from scheduling night shifts for cancer survivors whenever possible 0.762
      15 Cancer survivors should rely more on family than work 0.724
      16 Family love helps them recover physically and mentally 0.761
      17 Returning to the family allows for more care in terms of food, living, etc. 0.776
      18 Cancer survivors returning to work helps physical and mental health 0.890
      19 Returning to work for cancer survivors can ease the financial burden on families 0.816
      20 Survivors returning to work can realize their self-worth and increase their sense of achievement 0.840
      21 Working with cancer survivors can be stressful 0.624
      22 Working with cancer survivors can be emotionally draining 0.773
      23 Communicating with cancer survivors can be stressful for fear of hurting them by saying the wrong thing. 0.730
      24 Family love helps them recover physically and mentally 0.750
      25 Returning to the family allows for more care in terms of food, living, etc. 0.741
      Item codes are consistent with the Cancer Survivors Return to Work Public Attitudes Questionnaire; factor loading values reflect the importance of the entry in the dimension.

      Table 7. 

      Factor loadings from confirmatory factor analysis.

    • Dimension
      1 2 3 4 5 6
      Dimension 1 0.784
      Dimension 2 0.070 0.847
      Dimension 3 0.288*** 0.235*** 0.76
      Dimension 4 0.408*** 0.231*** 0.347*** 0.795
      Dimension 5 0.272*** 0.213** 0.346*** 0.309*** 0.751
      Dimension 6 0.295*** 0.231** 0.295*** 0.431*** 0.224* 0.74
      CR 0.863 0.910 0.891 0.895 0.793 0.784
      AVE 0.614 0.717 0.578 0.633 0.564 0.548
      Dimension 1: Working ability; Dimension 2: Health status; Dimension 3: Support system; Dimension 4: Returning to family; Dimension 5: Self-realisation; Dimension 6: Colleagues' and leaders' stress. CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extraction; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

      Table 8. 

      AVE and CR values for PAQ-CSRTW.

    • Invariance $\chi^2 $ DF CFI RMSEA $\Delta \chi^2 $ ∆DF ∆CFI ∆RMSEA
      Gender
      Configurational 753.822 543 0.948 0.036 29.553 19 −0.003 0.000
      Metric 771.697 564 0.949 0.035 47.407 40 0.001 −0.001
      Scalar 810.748 585 0.945 0.036 86.458 61 −0.004 0.001
      Educational levels
      Configurational 774.056 543 0.944 0.037 24.481 19 −0.001 −0.001
      Metric 792.255 564 0.944 0.037 42.68 40 0.000 0.000
      Scalar 814.554 585 0.944 0.036 64.979 61 0.000 −0.001
      DF: Degree of Freedom; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RSMEA: Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation.

      Table 9. 

      Measurement invariance test for gender and educational levels.

    • Dimension name Cronbach's α coefficient Retest reliability coefficient Split-half reliability coefficient
      Working ability 0.866 0.917
      Health status 0.823 0.920
      Support system 0.896 0.906
      Returning to family 0.892 0.955
      Self-realization 0.821 0.931
      Colleagues' and leaders' stress 0.828 0.890
      Scale 0.888 0.904 0.716

      Table 10. 

      Reliability coefficients of the questionnaire.