Understanding physical activity in adolescent cancer survivors: an application of the theory of planned behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notwithstanding the remarkable achievements in survival, there is a growing recognition that pediatric cancer survivors are faced with a variety of chronic health problems that may be exacerbated by maladaptive health behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to examine the utility of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in understanding adolescent survivors' motivation to engage in physical activity. A group of adolescent cancer survivors recalled their beliefs, attitudes, norms, perceptions of control, intentions and post-treatment physical activity behaviors using a self-administered, mailed questionnaire in a retrospective design. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the TPB explained 29.1% of the variance in physical activity behavior, with the significant independent correlates being intention (beta=0.31,p=0.023) and self-efficacy (beta=0.42,p=0.04). For intention, 33.7% of the variance was explained by the TPB, with affective attitude (beta=0.32,p=0.016) and instrumental attitude (beta=0.31, p=0.037) making significant unique contributions. The present study has provided some of the first data toward understanding physical activity behavior in adolescent cancer survivors. Specifically, the results suggest that interventions designed to promote physical activity in this population should focus on the development of a positive attitude as well as fostering an enhanced sense of self-efficacy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".