The variability of interventions found indicates the need to clarify the concept of RTW after a BC diagnosis. Recommendations are made for the development of multicomponent interventions that include both the clinic and the workplace to meet the particular needs of this population.

Studies on interprofessional practice usually report professionals' viewpoints and document organizational, procedural and relational factors influencing that practice. Considering the importance of interprofessional patient-centred (IPPC) practice, it seems necessary to describe it in detail in an actual context of care, from the perspective of patients, their families and health-care professionals. The goal of this study was to describe IPPC practice throughout the continuum of cancer care. A qualitative multiple case study was completed with two interprofessional teams from a Canadian teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted with patients, their families and professionals, and observation was carried out. Three themes were illustrated by current team practice: welcoming the person as a unique individual, but still requiring the patient to comply; the paradoxical coexistence of patient-centred discourse and professional-centred practice; and triggering team collaboration with the culmination of the patient's situation. Several influential factors were described, including the way the team works; the physical environment; professionals' and patients'/family members' stance on the collaboration; professionals' stance on patients and their families; and patients' stance on professionals. Finally, themes describing the desired IPPC practice reflect the wish of most participants to be more involved. They were: providing support in line with the patient's experience and involvement; respecting patients by not imposing professionals' values and goals; and consistency and regularity in the collaboration of all members.

This article discusses the case of a 47-year-old woman who underwent primary therapy with curative intent for breast cancer. The case illustrates a number of failure events in transferring information and responsibility from oncology to primary care teams. The article emphasizes the importance of shared leadership, as multiple team members, dispersed in time and space, pursue their own objectives while achieving the common goal of coordinating care for survivors of cancer transitioning across settings. Shared leadership is defined as a team property comprising shared responsibility and mutual influence between the patient and the patient's family, primary care providers, and oncology teams, whereby they lead each other toward quality and safety of care. Teams, including the patient-family, should achieve leadership when their contribution is relevant in managing task interdependence during transition. Shared leadership fosters coordinated actions to enable functioning as an integrated team-of-teams. This article illustrates how shared leadership can make a difference to coordinate interfaces and pathways, from therapy with curative intent to the follow-up and management of survivors of breast cancer. The detailed case is elaborated as a clinical vignette. It can be used by care providers and researchers to consider the need for new models of care for survivors of cancer by addressing the following questions. Who accepts shared leadership, how, with whom, and under what conditions? What is the evidence that supports the answers to these questions? The detailed case is also valuable for medical and allied health professional education.