Patient satisfaction with participation in a randomized exercise trial: Effects of randomization and a usual care posttrial exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in an exercise trial is a major commitment for cancer survivors, but few exercise trials have evaluated patient satisfaction with trial participation. PURPOSE: To examine patient satisfaction with participation in the Healthy Exercise for Lymphoma Patients (HELP) Trial and to explore possible determinants. METHODS: The HELP Trial randomized 122 lymphoma patients to 12 weeks of supervised aerobic exercise training (AET; n = 60) or to usual care (UC; n = 62), with the option of participating in a 4-week posttrial exercise program. At the 6-month follow-up assessment, participants evaluated their overall trial satisfaction. RESULTS: Personal satisfaction with trial participation was strongly influenced by group assignment with participants randomized to AET reporting participation to be more rewarding (p < 0.001) and personally useful (p < 0.001) than participants randomized to UC. UC participants who completed the optional 4-week posttrial exercise program reported participation to be more rewarding (p = 0.008) and personally useful (p < 0.001) than UC participants who declined the program. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by the lack of a validated measure of participant satisfaction, and the fact that the offer of participation in the posttrial exercise program to the UC group was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphoma patients randomized to UC viewed it as less rewarding and personally useful despite being offered a 4-week posttrial exercise program. UC participants who completed the 4-week program reported personal satisfaction levels similar to the AET group; however, the causal direction of this association is unknown. Researchers should continue to evaluate participant satisfaction in exercise trials.
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 | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".