PREDICTORS OF ADHERENCE AND CONTAMINATION IN A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF EXERCISE IN COLORECTAL CANCER SURVIVORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Colorectal Cancer and Home-Based Physical Exercise (CAN-HOPE) trial was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effects of a 16 week home-based exercise program on fitness and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. We previously reported problems with exercise adherence and contamination that negated the effects of the intervention when using intention-to-treat analysis. PURPOSE This study examined predictors of exercise adherence and contamination in the trial. METHODS We randomly assigned participants in a 2:1 ratio to either an exercise (n = 69) or control group (n = 33). At baseline, all participants completed measures of the theory of planned behavior, the five factor model of personality, past exercise, physical fitness, medical variables, and demographics. We monitored exercise over a 16 week period using weekly self-reports. RESULTS Data were available on 93 participants at follow-up (62 exercisers and 31 controls). Participants were 38 to 79 years old, 58% were male, 76% had colon cancer, 21% received radiation therapy, and 65% received chemotherapy. Adherence was good in the exercise group (76%) but contamination was a significant problem in the control group (52%). Hierarchical stepwise regression analyses indicated that the independent predictors of adherence in the exercise group were baseline exercise stage (ß = .35; p < .01), employment status (ß= −.28; p < .05), treatment protocol (ß= −.26; p < .05), and perceived control (ß = .20; p < .06). These variables explained 40% of the variance in exercise during the RCT. The independent predictors of exercise contamination in the control group were pre-existing intention (ß = .36; p < .05) and baseline exercise stage (ß = .30; p < .10), together explaining 30% of the variance in exercise during the RCT. CONCLUSION The predictors of exercise adherence and contamination in an RCT of colorectal cancer survivors are different. These findings may have important implications for maximizing exercise adherence and minimizing contamination in RCTs in this population.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".