Correlates of adherence and contamination in a randomized controlled trial of exercise in cancer survivors: An application of the theory of planned behavior and the five factor model of personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined correlates of adherence and contamination in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of exercise in cancer survivors using the theory of planned behavior and the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM). We randomly assigned cancer survivors in group psychotherapy classes to either a waiting-list control group (n = 45) or a home-based, moderate intensity exercise program (n = 51). At baseline, participants completed measures of the theory of planned behavior, the FFM, past exercise, physical fitness, medical variables, and demographics. We then monitored exercise over a 10-week period by weekly self-reports. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that the independent predictors of overall RCT exercise across both conditions were past exercise (beta = .36, p < .001), assignment to experimental condition (beta = .34, p < .001), sex (beta = .30, p < .001), and intention (beta = .14, p < .10). For exercise adherence in the exercise condition, the independent predictors were sex (beta = .38, p < .01), extraversion (beta = .30, p < .05), normative beliefs (beta = -.27, p < .05), and perceived behavioral control (beta = .23, p < .10). Finally, the independent predictors of exercise contamination in the control condition were past exercise (beta = .70, p < .001), sex (beta = .20, p < .05), and intention (beta = .17, p < .10). We conclude that the correlates of exercise adherence and contamination differ in kind as well as in degree. Explanations for these findings and practical implications for conducting exercise RCTs in this population are offered.
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 | 0.056 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".