Maintenance of Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors after a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the longer-term effects of pedometers and print materials on changes in physical activity (PA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in breast cancer survivors who participated in a 3-month behavior change intervention. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive either (a) a standard public health recommendation for PA (SR), (b) previously developed breast cancer-specific PA print materials (PM), (c) a step pedometer (PED), or (d) a combination of the two (COM). The primary endpoint was self-reported moderate/vigorous PA minutes per week at 6-month follow-up after the initial 3-month intervention period. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (266/377) of participants completed the 6-month follow-up assessment. According to intention-to-treat linear mixed-model analyses, self-reported moderate to vigorous PA increased by 9 min x wk(-1) in the SR group compared with 39 min x wk(-1) in the PM group (mean difference = 30 min x wk(-1); 95% CI = -44 to 104; P = 0.425), 69 min x wk(-1) in the PED group (mean difference = 60 min x wk(-1); 95% CI = -13 to 132; P = 0.107), and 56 min x wk(-1) in the COM group (mean difference = 47 min x wk(-1); 95% CI = -26 to 119; P = 0.210). The same pattern was observed for self-reported, brisk walking. No differences were found for HRQoL or fatigue. CONCLUSION(S): Breast cancer-specific PM and PED did not maintain significantly higher PA or HRQoL at 6-month follow-up in breast cancer survivors, but the magnitude of the effect on PA (30-60 min x wk(-1)) was consistent with the immediate postintervention effect observed at the 3-month postintervention time point. Issues of power resulting from additional loss to follow-up may account for the failure to achieve statistical significance. Additional research with larger sample sizes and more complete follow-up is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".