Lessons Learned in the Trenches
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Background: Improving effectiveness of group exercise counseling for breast cancer survivors is needed. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe clinical observations, with research and translation implications, derived during group exercise counseling for breast cancer survivors. Methods: While implementing group session components of an effective social cognitive theory-based exercise intervention, observations were made through verbal discussion with study staff, review of participant feedback, and prospective journaling by the group facilitator. The intervention has been implemented 11 times (ie, 63 survivors; 66 group sessions). Thematic consistency, application to intervention goals and design, and implications were reconciled between 2 investigators. Results: Breast cancer diagnosis was a strong source of commonality among group participants. Participant age, time since diagnosis, and expectation for group sessions (eg, group support vs health education) hindered group commonality. Barriers unique to the breast cancer experience were infrequent, but people-pleasing behavior was often identified as a barrier to adherence. Feeling at risk for cancer recurrence was a major concern. Some participants required referral for mental health evaluation for preexisting conditions (eg, depression). Although participants easily understood time management, application of other behavioral modification techniques was more difficult. Conclusions: A breast cancer diagnosis alone is not sufficient for commonality among group members. Teaching time management and positive reframing is essential. Protocols for appropriate mental health referrals are needed. Implications for Practice: Our observations will assist group facilitators in enhancing group dynamics and addressing obstacles hindering counseling effectiveness. Moreover, our results suggest hypotheses related to enhancing behavior change in a group setting worthy of future study. Background: Improving effectiveness of group exercise counseling for breast cancer survivors is needed. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe clinical observations, with research and translation implications, derived during group exercise counseling for breast cancer survivors. Methods: While implementing group session components of an effective social cognitive theory-based exercise intervention, observations were made through verbal discussion with study staff, review of participant feedback, and prospective journaling by the group facilitator. The intervention has been implemented 11 times (ie, 63 survivors; 66 group sessions). Thematic consistency, application to intervention goals and design, and implications were reconciled between 2 investigators. Results: Breast cancer diagnosis was a strong source of commonality among group participants. Participant age, time since diagnosis, and expectation for group sessions (eg, group support vs health education) hindered group commonality. Barriers unique to the breast cancer experience were infrequent, but people-pleasing behavior was often identified as a barrier to adherence. Feeling at risk for cancer recurrence was a major concern. Some participants required referral for mental health evaluation for preexisting conditions (eg, depression). Although participants easily understood time management, application of other behavioral modification techniques was more difficult. Conclusions: A breast cancer diagnosis alone is not sufficient for commonality among group members. Teaching time management and positive reframing is essential. Protocols for appropriate mental health referrals are needed. Implications for Practice: Our observations will assist group facilitators in enhancing group dynamics and addressing obstacles hindering counseling effectiveness. Moreover, our results suggest hypotheses related to enhancing behavior change in a group setting worthy of future study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,037 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».