Social Cognitive Theory and Physical Activity During Breast Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To measure the association between physical activity and social cognitive theory constructs during breast cancer treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Midwestern, academic oncology clinic. SAMPLE: 21 primarily Caucasian (90%) female patients with breast cancer undergoing treatment. 76% were > 50 years old; 76% had stage I or II disease. 17 completed the study. METHODS: Survey (structured interview or self-administration), chart audit, pedometer, and seven-day physical activity recall. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Steps per day, energy expenditure, self-efficacy, barriers, partners and role models, prior physical activity counseling, physical activity knowledge, pretreatment physical activity, outcome expectations and values, goals, reinforcement management, and emotional well-being. FINDINGS: A higher average of steps per day was significantly associated with having an exercise role model and higher annual income. A higher daily energy expenditure (kilocalories per kilogram body weight per day) was significantly associated with higher barrier self-efficacy, higher task self-efficacy, having an exercise partner, having an exercise role model, higher physical activity enjoyment, and lower negative value score. CONCLUSIONS: Social cognitive theory may provide a useful framework for understanding physical activity among patients with breast cancer during treatment, but correlation strength varies with physical activity measurement type. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Social cognitive theory and physical activity during breast cancer treatment warrant additional study with larger sample sizes and multivariate analyses. Interventions to increase physical activity among patients with breast cancer may use social cognitive theory and assess theory constructs as potential mediators or moderators in intervention evaluation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".