Development and Assessment of a Physical Activity Guidebook for the Colon Health and Life-Long Exercise Change (CHALLENGE) Trial (NCIC CO.21)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report the development and assessment of a physical activity (PA) guidebook called Step Up to the Challenge that is being used to support a PA behavior change intervention in a randomized trial examining PA and disease-free survival in colon cancer survivors. METHODS: Content for the PA guidebook was constructed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Expert judges (N = 51) included oncologists, rehabilitation practitioners, colon cancer survivors, and TPB researchers. All expert judges completed the Maine Area Health Education Center checklist for evaluating written health information. A subset of TPB expert judges (n = 11) also assessed the degree of match between the guidebook content and TPB constructs. RESULTS: Expert judges indicated that the PA guidebook achieved desirable attributes for organization, writing style, appearance, appeal, feasibility, and appropriateness. For the TPB assessment, all mean item-content relevance ratings indicated at least a "very good match" between the PA guidebook content and the TPB constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Our guidebook successfully targets the TPB constructs known to influence PA behavior change and contains suitable and appropriate written health information. This guidebook will be an integral component of the behavioral support program designed to determine the effects of PA on disease-free survival in colon cancer survivors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".