Translating Research in Practice:The Healthy Living After Cancer Partnership Project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
49 TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE: THE HEALTHY LIVING AFTER CANCER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT<br/>Elizabeth Eakin1, Sandi Hayes2, Marina Reeves1, Ana Goode1, Janette Vardy3, Fran Boyle4, Marion Haas5, Janet Hiller6, Gita Mishra1, Michael Jefford7, Bogda Koczwara8, Christobel Saunders9, Kathy Chapman10, Lorna O'Brien10, Anna Boltong11, Katherine Lane11, Polly Baldwin12, Greg Sharplin12, Lesley Millar13, Sandy McKiernan13, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried14, Kerry Courneya15, Erin Robson1<br/><br/>1. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia<br/><br/>2. School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia<br/><br/>3. Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>4. Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care & Research, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>5. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>6. School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia<br/><br/>7. Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCullum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic, Australia<br/><br/>8. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia<br/><br/>9. School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia<br/><br/>10. Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>11. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Vic, Australia<br/><br/>12. Cancer Council South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia<br/><br/>13. Cancer Council WA, Perth, WA, Australia<br/><br/>14. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA<br/><br/>15. Behavioural Medicine Laboratory, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada<br/><br/>Aims: There is considerable evidence for the role of physical activity, healthy diet and weight control in improving outcomes for cancer survivors, and evidence for related lifestyle interventions. However, these are not incorporated as part of routine care. The Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) NHMRC-funded Partnership Project is evaluating the uptake of an evidence-based, six-month telephone-delivered lifestyle program targeting cancer survivors (of any type following treatment with curative intent) by four Cancer Councils (NSW, VIC, SA, WA) in collaboration with an interdisciplinary research team.<br/><br/>Methods: Phase IV dissemination study; single-group, pre-post design; conducted in three phases over five years: 1) infrastructure and capacity building; 2) implementation and evaluation; 3) advocacy for continued funding, pending findings. Primary outcomes relate to program implementation: adoption (i.e., referrals from treatment centres and community services); reach and retention of participants; fidelity of implementation by Cancer Councils; participant and staff satisfaction; fixed and recurrent costs of program delivery. Secondary (patient-reported) outcomes are: physical activity and dietary behaviour change, weight, quality of life, cancer-related side-effects, distress and fear of recurrence.<br/><br/>Results: Phase I activities (protocol adaptation for Cancer Council delivery; database development; staff training; referral pathway and promotional material development) are complete. All Cancer Councils have begun to pilot HLaC program delivery (Phase II) which will continue for three years. To date, a total of 29 patients have enrolled: 79% female; aged 30 to 82; average BMI = 28 kg/m2 (SD = 8.5); with a wide range of cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, lymphoma, kidney, cervical, Ewing's sarcoma, acute lymphoid leukaemia and basal cell carcinoma).<br/><br/>Conclusions: This University-Cancer Council collaboration provides an opportunity for national dissemination of an evidence-based intervention to support healthy living among cancer survivors. Rigorous evaluation of service-level and patient-reported outcomes will provide the practice-based evidence needed to inform subsequent applications for sustained funding.
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 | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| 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 ».