Exploring Social Cognitive Theory Constructs for Promoting Exercise Among Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity during breast cancer treatment can significantly reduce treatment-related fatigue and improve quality of life. Unfortunately, the majority of women with breast cancer either do not exercise at all or exercise below recommended levels. Little is known about how to enhance physical activity among breast cancer patients. The social cognitive theory, a useful framework for the design of physical activity interventions, has not been studied among breast cancer patients. Our study purpose was to explore physical activity knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among breast cancer patients during adjuvant therapy utilizing social cognitive theory constructs in preparation for a larger, survey study and future intervention research. Twelve breast cancer patients attended 1 of 3 focus group sessions. Focus group questions were based on the social cognitive theory constructs of self-efficacy, environment, behavioral capability, expectations, expectancies, self-control and performance, observational learning, and reinforcement. The focus group participants generally felt confident in their ability to exercise during treatment if fatigue, time management, and social networking were addressed. The majority of participants had not been given information related to exercise by their physicians during treatment. The participants felt that exercise was more beneficial than harmful during treatment, with the 2 most important benefits identified as reduced fatigue and the potential for improved survival. The use of reinforcements by participants was minimal. The participants consistently expressed the desire for education and guidance by knowledgeable staff during an exercise program. Walking was the most acceptable exercise modality. Social cognitive theory may be a useful framework for future study of exercise behavior among breast cancer patients and measurement of constructs related to this theory should be included in such studies. Future exercise intervention studies should consider the unique barriers and program preferences of breast cancer patients while focusing on self-efficacy, outcome expectations/ expectancies, observational learning, and reinforcements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".