Exercise stage of change, barriers, expectations, values and preferences among breast cancer patients during treatment: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing evidence supporting physical activity benefits during breast cancer treatment, addressing exercise adherence with consideration of the unique exercise barriers, outcome expectations and preferences of cancer patients is needed. Our pilot study aimed to determine the following during breast cancer treatment: (1) exercise barriers, outcome expectations/values and associations with exercise stage of change and (2) exercise preferences. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 23 breast cancer patients during treatment. Participants were primarily aged 50-60 years (52%), Caucasian (91%), with stage I (30%), II (44%) or III (26%) disease. A total of 48% were receiving chemotherapy. In total, 50% were in the pre-contemplation/contemplation stage of change, with 34% in action/maintenance. Common exercise adherence barriers (i.e. lack of priority, self-discipline, procrastination and fatigue) demonstrated statistically significant negative associations with exercise. Frequent outcome expectations included improving heart/lungs, reducing disease risk, building muscle strength and losing weight. Important outcomes included improving state of mind, reducing fatigue and avoiding injury. Outcome expectations (i.e. less depression, boredom and nausea) were positively associated with exercise. The majority preferred walking (100%), moderate-intensity (61%), home-based (78%) exercise. Among breast cancer patients during treatment, exercise adherence barriers are general and disease specific. Outcome expectations are physical benefits, with the most important outcomes being psychological or avoidance of risk (i.e. injury).
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".