Ed surveyCancer. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 15.Jagsi et al.Pagetaken to indicate informed consent. After notifying physicians, we first recruited and surveyed patients a mean of nine months after diagnosis (mean time from diagnosis to SKF-96365 (hydrochloride)MedChemExpress SKF-96365 (hydrochloride) survey response 284 days, SD 96). We then contacted all respondents approximately four years later (mean time from diagnosis to survey response 1524 days, SD 143). To encourage response, we provided a 10 cash incentive along with the paper survey mailing and used a modified Dillman method (25), including reminders to non-respondents. All materials were sent in English and Spanish to those with Spanish surnames (26). Responses to the baseline and follow-up surveys were combined into a single dataset, into which clinical data from SEER was merged. The evolution of the sample is detailed in Figure 1. Measures Our primary dependent variable for analysis was defined by selecting those women who reported working (regardless of whether full- or part-time) prior to diagnosis (as reported in the baseline questionnaire) and then determining which of these reported in the follow-up survey that they were not working at that time. We considered a number of independent variables. Clinical factors included SEER-reported clinical stage (AJCC Stage 0, I, II, or III) and patient-reported comorbidity and treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery) measured in the baseline survey. Sociodemographic factors were determined in the baseline questionnaire, including age, race/ethnicity, educational status, family income, marital status, work hours at diagnosis (full time versus less than full-time), and employment support (having a job with sick leave and/or Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazoneMedChemExpress Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone flexible schedule). Geographic site (Los Angeles vs. Detroit) was also included in the analyses. We measured in the follow-up survey patients’ perceptions of whether, since the time of diagnosis, they were worse off regarding health insurance, employment status, and financial status. We also evaluated, among those not working at the time of the follow-up survey, how important it was for them to work and whether they were actively seeking employment. Analytic Approach To allow statistical inferences to be more representative of the original targeted population, we applied survey weights and implemented a multiple imputation method to the calculation of percentages and regression analyses. (27) All percentages reported in the text below are so weighted and reported alongside unweighted Ns. Design weights compensated for the disproportionate selection across race and SEER sites; survey unit non-response weights compensated for the fact that women with certain characteristics were not as likely to respond to the surveys (patients who did not respond to both surveys were more likely to be African American–35.2 v. 26.7 , P<0.001; to be Latina--17.2 vs. 13.3 , p=0.002; to have stage II II disease--54.9 v. 37.8 , P<0.001; and to have had mastectomy--37.5 vs. 30.8 , P<0.001). Among patients who responded to both surveys, missing data due to survey item non-response constituted 10 of the analytic sample when all covariates in the final model were considered simultaneously. To address missing data from item nonresponse, we first multiply imputed the data five times followed by combining the results from statistical analyses on these five imputed data sets using Rubin's formula (28,29). WeAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manusc.Ed surveyCancer. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 15.Jagsi et al.Pagetaken to indicate informed consent. After notifying physicians, we first recruited and surveyed patients a mean of nine months after diagnosis (mean time from diagnosis to survey response 284 days, SD 96). We then contacted all respondents approximately four years later (mean time from diagnosis to survey response 1524 days, SD 143). To encourage response, we provided a 10 cash incentive along with the paper survey mailing and used a modified Dillman method (25), including reminders to non-respondents. All materials were sent in English and Spanish to those with Spanish surnames (26). Responses to the baseline and follow-up surveys were combined into a single dataset, into which clinical data from SEER was merged. The evolution of the sample is detailed in Figure 1. Measures Our primary dependent variable for analysis was defined by selecting those women who reported working (regardless of whether full- or part-time) prior to diagnosis (as reported in the baseline questionnaire) and then determining which of these reported in the follow-up survey that they were not working at that time. We considered a number of independent variables. Clinical factors included SEER-reported clinical stage (AJCC Stage 0, I, II, or III) and patient-reported comorbidity and treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery) measured in the baseline survey. Sociodemographic factors were determined in the baseline questionnaire, including age, race/ethnicity, educational status, family income, marital status, work hours at diagnosis (full time versus less than full-time), and employment support (having a job with sick leave and/or flexible schedule). Geographic site (Los Angeles vs. Detroit) was also included in the analyses. We measured in the follow-up survey patients' perceptions of whether, since the time of diagnosis, they were worse off regarding health insurance, employment status, and financial status. We also evaluated, among those not working at the time of the follow-up survey, how important it was for them to work and whether they were actively seeking employment. Analytic Approach To allow statistical inferences to be more representative of the original targeted population, we applied survey weights and implemented a multiple imputation method to the calculation of percentages and regression analyses. (27) All percentages reported in the text below are so weighted and reported alongside unweighted Ns. Design weights compensated for the disproportionate selection across race and SEER sites; survey unit non-response weights compensated for the fact that women with certain characteristics were not as likely to respond to the surveys (patients who did not respond to both surveys were more likely to be African American--35.2 v. 26.7 , P<0.001; to be Latina--17.2 vs. 13.3 , p=0.002; to have stage II II disease--54.9 v. 37.8 , P<0.001; and to have had mastectomy--37.5 vs. 30.8 , P<0.001). Among patients who responded to both surveys, missing data due to survey item non-response constituted 10 of the analytic sample when all covariates in the final model were considered simultaneously. To address missing data from item nonresponse, we first multiply imputed the data five times followed by combining the results from statistical analyses on these five imputed data sets using Rubin's formula (28,29). WeAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manusc.