A randomized controlled trial of a multiple health behavior change intervention delivered to colorectal cancer survivors: Effects on sedentary behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior may independently contribute to morbidity and mortality among survivors of colorectal cancer. In the current study, the authors assessed whether a telephone-delivered multiple health behavior change intervention had an effect on the sedentary behavior of recently diagnosed colorectal cancer survivors. METHODS: A total of 410 participants were recruited through the Queensland Cancer Registry and randomized to the health coaching (intervention) or usual-care (control) group. Eleven health coaching sessions addressing multiple health behaviors, including sedentary behavior, were delivered over a period of 6 months. Data were collected at baseline (before randomization), at 6 months, and at 12 months via a telephone interview. RESULTS: At 12 months, there was a significant decrease noted in the hours per day of sedentary time in both the health coaching (-1.21; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -1.71 to -0.70) and usual-care groups (-0.55; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.05), but the between-group difference was not found to be statistically significant (-0.65; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.06 [P = .07]). In stratified subgroup analyses, the multiple health behavior change intervention was found to have a significant effect on total sedentary time (hours/day) at 12 months in survivors of colorectal cancer who were aged > 60 years (-0.90; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.01 [P = .05]), male (-1.33; 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.21 [P = .02]), and nonobese (-1.10; 95% CI, -1.96 to -0.25; [P = .01]). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating simple messages about limiting sedentary behaviors into a multiple health behavior change intervention was found to have modest effects on sedentary behavior. A sedentary behavior-specific intervention strategy may be required to achieve substantial changes in sedentary behavior among colorectal cancer survivors.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".