Changes in Motivational Outcomes After a Supervised Resistance Exercise Training Intervention in Lung Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short-term supervised exercise interventions improve health-related fitness in lung cancer survivors; however, sustained exercise is required to maintain the health benefits. The impact of exercise interventions on motivational outcomes may be important for long-term exercise adoption. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a 10-week supervised progressive resistance exercise training program on lung cancer survivors' motivational outcomes based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). METHODS: Posttreatment lung cancer survivors were recruited to undergo a 10-week supervised resistance exercise training intervention. The 2-component model of the TPB was measured at baseline and after intervention. RESULTS: Fifteen participants completed assessments of TPB measures. Significant increases in self-efficacy (P = .022) and perceived controllability (P = .032) and a nonsignificant increase in affective attitude (P = .090) were observed after intervention. Intention was significantly lower at postintervention (P = .044). Significant correlates of postintervention intention were instrumental attitude (P = .001), self-efficacy (P = .004), perceived behavioral control (P = .009), and affective attitude (P = .044). At postintervention, self-efficacy was significantly correlated with planning (P < .046). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term supervised resistance exercise training may improve some motivational outcomes for lung cancer survivors. Intentions appeared to be weakened after the intervention, but there are methodological explanations for this finding. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Participation in short-term supervised resistance exercise may be an effective method to improve some motivational factors related to exercise in lung cancer survivors. More research is needed to examine the long-term effects of supervised resistance exercise on motivational outcomes in lung cancer survivors. Strategies to maintain motivational changes that occur following a supervised resistance exercise intervention need to be investigated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".