Background Former inmates are at high risk for death from drug overdose, especially in the immediate post-release period. The purpose of the study is to understand the drug use experiences, perceptions of overdose risk, and experiences with overdose among former prisoners. Methods This qualitative study included former prison inmates (N = 29) who were recruited within two months after their release. Interviewers conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews which explored participants' experiences and perceptions. Transcripts were analyzed utilizing a team-based method of inductive analysis. Results The following themes emerged: 1) Relapse to drugs and alcohol occurred in a context of poor social support, medical co-morbidity and inadequate economic resources; 2) former inmates experienced ubiquitous exposure to drugs in their living environments; 3) intentional overdose was considered "a way out" given situational stressors, and accidental overdose was perceived as related to decreased tolerance; and 4) protective factors included structured drug treatment programs, spirituality/religion, community-based resources (including self-help groups), and family. Conclusions Former inmates return to environments that strongly trigger relapse to drug use and put them at risk for overdose. Interventions to prevent overdose after release from prison may benefit from including structured treatment with gradual transition to the community, enhanced protective factors, and reductions of environmental triggers to use drugs.

Few studies have examined the impact of cancer on the survivor's quality of work life. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the work experiences among a diverse group of cancer survivors and to explore factors influencing decisions about work after cancer diagnosis and treatment. We interviewed 28 participants with a broad range of socioeconomic backgrounds and primary cancer sites. Qualitative results indicate that after learning about their cancer diagnosis, participants had diverse and complex patterns of work return and work change, and experienced a variety of factors that influenced post-cancer decisions. Experiences at work after cancer also varied in relation to how others responded, changes in productivity, effects of cancer and treatment on work, and feelings about work. Most respondents received little guidance from their physicians about work, and many participants described their cancer as impacting their priority of work relative to other aspects of their lives. Our findings reinforce the complexity of measuring employment outcomes and the range of adaptations made to improve the quality of work life. Additional research is needed to identify prognostic factors that can guide clinical or workplace efforts to restore cancer survivors to their desired level of work function and economic productivity.

No abstract

Most previously employed cancer survivors continue to work after treatment, but the impact of cancer symptoms or psychosocial concerns on their work has seldom been assessed. We conducted a community-based survey of cancer survivors from the Colorado Central Cancer Registry to assess the changes in their work and the demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics associated with work changes over the 2 years following diagnosis. Of 100 survivors, 92 returned to work, but 57% of those reduced their work by more than 4 h/week, and 56% noted a change in some aspect of their occupational role. Physical symptoms, particularly lack of energy or nausea/vomiting, and psychological symptoms, particularly feeling bored or useless or feeling depressed, were significantly associated with a reduction in work hours or a change in occupational role. Since changes in work are common and are associated with both physical and psychosocial symptoms, strategies are needed to reduce symptom burden and barriers to work and to improve work capacity for working-age cancer survivors.

In our sample, cardiologists' desire to adhere to published guidelines appears to inhibit shared decision making. The marked variability in the discussions surrounding ICD decisions highlights a need for an improved process of ICD decision making.