A Longitudinal Study of Exercise Barriers in Colorectal Cancer Survivors Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Colorectal Cancer and Home-Based Physical Exercise (CAN-HOPE) trial compared the effects of a 16-week home-based exercise program to usual care on quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. PURPOSE: In this study, we report the weekly exercise barriers from the exercise group. METHODS: Participants randomized to the exercise group (N = 69) were asked to report their exercise on a weekly basis by telephone. Those participants not achieving the minimum weekly exercise prescription (3 times per week of 30 min of moderate intensity exercise) were asked for a primary exercise barrier. RESULTS: We obtained 1,073 (97.2%) weeks of adherence data out of a possible 1,104 (i.e., 69 x 16). Participants did not meet the minimum exercise prescription in 39.2% (421/1,073) of the weeks. We obtained an exercise barrier in 83.8% (353/421) of these cases. Overall, participants reported 37 different exercise barriers; the three most common were lack of time/too busy, nonspecific treatment side effects, and fatigue. The top 7 to 10 barriers accounted for 70% to 80% of all missed exercise weeks. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may have utility for promoting exercise in this population both inside and outside of clinical trials.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".