Examining a Therapeutic Yoga Program for Prostate Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the earlier stages of prostate cancer, effective treatments have created a need for research to focus on practices that may improve quality of life throughout survivorship. Physical activity is a significant supportive care management strategy for prostate cancer survivors, though the optimal modality is not yet understood. HYPOTHESES: The authors hypothesized that yoga would be a feasible physical activity option for prostate cancer survivors and their support persons and that the incorporation of social support would increase physical activity adherence. METHODS: This 14-week feasibility study involved a 7-week class-based yoga program (adherence phase), followed by 7 weeks of self-selected physical activity (maintenance phase). Demographic information, physical activity behavior, quality of life, fatigue, stress, mood, and fitness variables were assessed at 3 time points. Prostate cancer survivors' perceived social support was rated during yoga and after yoga. RESULTS: Class attendance was 6.1 and 5.8 for prostate cancer survivors (n = 15) and their support persons (n = 10), respectively, for the 7 classes. Levels of perceived social support were higher for those who brought a support person. Significant improvements with regard to stress, fatigue, and mood before and after yoga class (all Ps < .05) were reported by all participants. No clinically significant changes were noted on prostate cancer survivor's quality of life or fatigue over the course of the 14-week study. CONCLUSIONS: Yoga is a feasible physical activity option for prostate cancer survivors. The program had a promising uptake rate, high program adherence rate, and there were acute program benefits with regard to stress, fatigue, and mood for all participants. Future examination is warranted with regard to chronic benefits and group cohesion influences on levels of perceived social support.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".