Interest and preferences for exercise counselling and programming among Norwegian cancer survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be able to make suitable exercise intervention programmes for cancer survivors, we need more information about exercise preferences. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the interest and preferences for exercise among Norwegian cancer survivors. A secondary aim was to identify demographic and medical characteristics associated with interest in exercise counselling. A questionnaire was completed by 1284 cancer survivors. Overall, 76% of participants were interested or maybe interested in receiving exercise counselling at some point during their cancer experience. Logistic regression analyses indicated that the interest in exercise counselling in men was associated with younger age, presence of comorbidity and having received chemotherapy. In women, the interest was associated with younger age, higher education and change in physical activity level. The participants preferred face-to-face exercise counselling with an exercise specialist from a cancer centre, at a hospital, immediately after treatment. Most cancer survivors were interested in an exercise programme, walking as activity, at moderate intensity and they wanted to start immediately after treatment. The knowledge from this study can contribute to make suitable physical rehabilitation available to cancer patients in the future.
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.
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 it