Feasibility of an exercise rehabilitation programme for cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence indicates the benefits of exercise as a rehabilitation intervention for cancer patients. However, few hospitals offer exercise-based rehabilitation programmes to patients. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a group-based exercise programme for cancer patients attending a local oncology centre. The intervention consisted of a weekly instructor-led circuit training class supplemented by home-based activity 4 days/week for 10 weeks. From 28 eligible patients, 12 were recruited (43%), of whom nine completed the intervention (75%). The three withdrawals were due to worsening of disease. Adherence (mean of 7.5 classes attended and 4 days/week of home activity performed) and tolerability (no adverse events) were good. Positive features of the programme identified in interviews with participants included the variety and scope of the exercises, and the empathetic but positive approach of the instructors. The small group format was highly valued with participants receiving social support and inspiration from each other. Perceived outcomes included improved fitness, reduced fatigue, enjoyment, enhanced mood and a sense of achievement. Several participants felt that the intervention represented a stepping stone to becoming habitual exercisers. Results suggested that the programme was feasible and acceptable to patients, but uptake was low, indicating a need for more effective recruitment strategies in order for a cost-effective service to be implemented.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".