Exercise Use as Complementary Therapy Among Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors Receiving Active Treatment: Examination of Exercise Intention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is associated with an improved quality of life among cancer survivors. Previous research has highlighted the utility of the theory of planned behavior in understanding cancer survivors' intention to exercise. The purpose of this study was to extend the research on the theory of planned behavior in relation to exercise intention in breast cancer survivors and to provide preliminary evidence supporting its application with prostate cancer survivors during treatment. METHODS: Participants consisted of 126 breast and 82 prostate cancer survivors receiving active treatment. Participants completed self-administered, mail-in questionnaires that assessed demographic and medical variables, past exercise, and the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS: For breast cancer survivors, the results revealed that attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control explained 66% of the variance in exercise intention with the instrumental component of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control making significant unique contributions to intention. For prostate cancer survivors, attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control explained 57% of the variance in exercise intention, with subjective norm and perceived behavioral control making significant unique contributions to intention. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide further support that the theory of planned behavior is a useful framework for understanding determinants of exercise intention in breast cancer survivors undergoing active treatment and preliminary support for prostate cancer survivors undergoing active treatment. When designing exercise interventions, differences in breast and prostate cancer survivors' exercise intention merit consideration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".