Predictors of Supervised Exercise Adherence during Breast Cancer Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exercise adherence is difficult during cancer treatments, but few studies have examined the predictors of such exercise. Here, we report the predictors of adherence to supervised exercise training during breast cancer chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (N = 242) initiating adjuvant chemotherapy in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Vancouver were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 82), supervised resistance exercise (n = 82), or supervised aerobic exercise (n = 78) for the duration of their chemotherapy. Baseline data on standard demographic, medical, behavioral, fitness, and psychosocial variables as well as motivational variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior were collected. Adherence was assessed by objective attendance records. RESULTS: Adherence to supervised exercise was 70.2%. Univariate analyses indicated significant or borderline significant associations between exercise adherence and location/center (r = 0.30; P < 0.001), V[spacing dot above]O2peak (r = 0.21; P = 0.008), muscular strength (r = 0.21; P = 0.008), percent body fat (r = -0.21; P = 0.012), disease stage (r = 0.17; P = 0.031), education (r = 0.15; P = 0.053), depression (r = -0.14; P = 0.073), and smoking (r = -0.14; P = 0.081). In multivariate analysis, location/center (beta = 0.28; P = 0.001), V[spacing dot above]O2peak ([beta] = 0.19; P = 0.016), disease stage (beta = 0.18; P = 0.015), and depression (beta = -0.16; P = 0.033) remained significant and explained 21% of the variance in exercise adherence. Participants in Vancouver, with higher aerobic fitness, more advanced disease stage, and lower depression, achieved better adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence to supervised exercise training was predicted by unique aspects of the location/center, disease stage, aerobic fitness, and depression but not motivational variables. Location/center in our trial may have been a proxy for the amount of one-on-one attention received during supervised exercise. These findings may have implications for improving adherence during breast cancer chemotherapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".