MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153668989 · doi:10.1123/jsep.31.2.267

A Theory-Driven Approach to Encourage Physical Activity in Pediatric Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study

2009· article· en· W2153668989 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie R. Keats, Nicole Culos-Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPediatric cancerPsychological interventionPhysical activityBehavior changeDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyControl (management)CancerSocial psychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the efficacy of a theory-based intervention designed to positively influence physical activity (PA) behavior in a group of pediatric cancer survivors. Ten survivors participated in a 16-week PA intervention that targeted the main theoretical tenets of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Survivors were followed over a course of 1 year and completed measures of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, intentions for PA, and self-reported PA behavior at five different times. While the magnitude of change varied across the key theoretical constructs, it appears that the intervention had a small yet meaningful impact, particularly for overall behavioral intentions. Overall, this study provides preliminary data to suggest that the TPB may be a viable framework from which to build interventions for pediatric cancer survivors. Future research will be required to further identify and target the key elements and theoretical constructs within a behavioral intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207