Effects of Targeted Print Materials on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Young Adult Cancer Survivors During and After Treatment: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the effects of targeted physical activity (PA) print material on PA and quality of life (QOL) in young adult cancer survivors (YACS) aged 18–39 either on or off treatment. Methods: YACS ( N =212) recruited from a cancer registry were randomly assigned to a Targeted Physical Activity Guidebook (TPAG) or the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (CPAG). An online or mailed survey assessed the primary outcome of self-reported PA minutes and secondary QOL outcomes. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months for PA and at baseline and 3 months for QOL. Results: At 3 months, analyses of covariance showed no differences between the groups for the primary outcome of PA minutes/week (adjusted mean group difference=+8 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −60 to +77; p =0.81). The TPAG was superior to the CPAG for the mental component of QOL (adjusted mean group difference=+3.1; 95% CI: +0.1 to +7.3; p =0.043). In an exploratory analysis of YACS reporting ≤300 PA minutes/week at baseline ( N =108), the TPAG group was superior to the CPAG group at 3 months for PA minutes/week (adjusted mean group difference=+90; 95% CI: +10 to +170; p =0.028). Conclusion: Targeted PA print material did not increase PA compared to generic PA print material in a highly active sample of YACS. In YACS reporting ≤300 PA minutes/week at baseline—the group of interest from a PA behavior change perspective—the targeted PA print material was effective in increasing PA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".