A Theory and Evidence-Informed e-Cycling Intervention for Individuals Diagnosed With Cancer: Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physical activity engagement following a cancer diagnosis is positively associated with survival, reduced risk of disease recurrence, and reduced cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. However, rates of physical activity engagement are low among individuals diagnosed with and being treated for breast cancer or prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the systematic process of developing an e-cycling intervention aimed at increasing physical activity among individuals living with prostate cancer or breast cancer and outline the key components to be implemented. METHODS: The Medical Research Council guidance for developing complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel were used to guide intervention development. Information was gathered from the literature and through discussions with end users to understand factors influencing e-cycling. These factors were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify potential mechanisms of action. Behavior change techniques were selected from theory and evidence to develop intervention content. Interested parties, including cycling instructors, end users, and behavior change experts, reviewed and refined the intervention. RESULTS: Anticipated barriers and facilitators to e-cycling engagement were mapped onto 11 of the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. A total of 23 behavior change techniques were selected to target these domains over 4 one-to-one e-cycling sessions delivered by trained cycling instructors in the community. Cycling instructors were provided a 3-hour classroom training session on delivering the intervention and a 3-hour practical session with feedback. The outcome of this work is a theory and evidence-informed intervention aimed at promoting e-cycling behavior among individuals being treated for breast cancer or prostate cancer, which is currently being implemented and evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Transparent intervention development and reporting of content is important for comprehensively examining intervention implementation. The implementation of this intervention package is currently being evaluated in a pilot randomized controlled trial. If the intervention is found to be effective and the content and delivery are acceptable, this intervention will form a basis for the development of e-cycling interventions in other survivors of cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39112034 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39112034; and IRSCTN Registry ISRCTN42852156; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42852156.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».