Breast and Colon Cancer Survivors’ Expectations About Physical Activity for Improving Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To compare physical activity outcome expectations related to cancer survival with traditional physical activity outcome expectations in breast and colon cancer survivors . DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey . SETTING: Canada and the United States. SAMPLE: 146 participants . METHODS: Self-reported survey instruments and height and weight measurement. The online survey was completed once by each participant . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire, Multidimensional Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale (MOEES), and an item assessing physical activity outcome expectations related to cancer survival. FINDINGS: Paired sample t tests indicated that the mean score for the physical subscale of the MOEES was significantly higher than the mean score on the physical activity outcome expectations related to cancer survival variable (p < 0.001). Multiple regression analyses indicated that physical activity outcome expectations related to cancer survival explained 4.8% of the variance in physical activity (p = 0.011) . CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the current study suggest that, among breast and colon cancer survivors, outcome expectations related to cancer survival may influence physical activity levels and may not be as realized as traditional outcome expectations . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses should familiarize themselves with the guidelines and benefits of physical activity for survivors so they can provide guidance and support to patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".