MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2011391403 · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-237

Efficacy of a referral and physical activity program for survivors of prostate cancer [ENGAGE]: Rationale and design for a cluster randomised controlled trial

2011· article· en· W2011391403 on OpenAlexafffund
Patricia M. Livingston, Jo Salmon, Kerry S. Courneya, Cadeyrn J. Gaskin, Melinda Craike, Mari Botti, Suzanne Broadbent, Bridie Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAustralian Research CouncilPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreCanada Research ChairsProstate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaProstate Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineReferralSurgical oncologyProstate cancerPhysical therapyCluster (spacecraft)Randomized controlled trialPhysical activityCluster randomised controlled trialCancerOncologyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that physical activity improves the health and well-being of prostate cancer survivors, many men do not engage in sufficient levels of activity. The primary aim of this study (ENGAGE) is to determine the efficacy of a referral and physical activity program among survivors of prostate cancer, in terms of increasing participation in physical activity. Secondary aims are to determine the effects of the physical activity program on psychological well-being, quality of life and objective physical functioning. The influence of individual and environmental mediators on participation in physical activity will also be determined. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial. Clinicians of prostate cancer survivors will be randomised into either the intervention or control condition. Clinicians in the intervention condition will refer eligible patients (n=110) to participate in an exercise program, comprising 12 weeks of supervised exercise sessions and unsupervised physical activity. Clinicians allocated to the control condition will provide usual care to eligible patients (n=110), which does not involve the recommendation of the physical activity program. Participants will be assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months on physical activity, quality of life, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goals, and socio-structural factors. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study have implications for clinicians and patients with different cancer types or other chronic health conditions. It will contribute to our understanding on the potential impact of clinicians promoting physical activity to patients and the long term health benefits of participating in physical activity programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12610000609055Deakin University Human Research Ethics Approval 2011-085.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0110.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Cancer→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→