Physical Activity Participation and Preferences: Developmental and Oncology-Related Transitions in Adolescents Treated for Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe motor function and participation in, barriers to, and preferences for physical activity (PA) in adolescents during and after treatment of cancer and to discuss PA promotion in the context of developmental and cancer transitions. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey study used the Transfer and Basic Mobility and Sports/Physical Functioning self-report and parent-report scales of the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and questions about PA participation and preferences to collect information from 80 adolescents and 63 parents. RESULTS: PODCI scores for adolescents receiving treatment were more variable and significantly lower than those of adolescents who had been off treatment for more than 2 years. Fatigue, pain, general health, and doctor's orders were frequently identified as barriers to PA for adolescents receiving treatment. Many did not achieve recommended levels of PA. The adolescents expressed preferences for being active with friends and family, at home or in school, in the afternoon or evening, and through daily recreational and sports activities typical of teenagers. CONCLUSIONS: Physical abilities and participation in and barriers to PA vary across the cancer journey. Interventions should be sensitive to variability and acknowledge individual preferences and environments throughout the trajectories and transitions of cancer treatment and youth development to achieve lifelong healthy lifestyles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".