A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perceptions of Sedentary Behavior in Prostate Cancer Survivors Receiving Androgen-Deprivation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe and understand the perceptions of sedentary behavior (SED) and the interests and preferences for a SED intervention of men on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) within a two-phase (formative and intervention research) feasibility study. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, descriptive. SETTING: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Odette Cancer Centre, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 27 men on ADT. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Men were recruited from prostate cancer clinics. Nine focus groups were conducted from November 2013 to April 2014 until data saturation was reached. Probe questions assessed perceptions regarding SED and preferences for a mobile SED intervention. Data were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was conducted. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven men with a mean age of 73.5 years (SD = 8.1 years) volunteered for the study. Most men were aware of the health risks associated with SED, but most discussed SED in terms of increasing physical activity (PA). Many men were interested in a mobile application to reduce SED and expressed that the design should be easy to use, have an alerting function to interrupt sitting, have the ability to track and monitor PA levels, be tailored to the individual, and involve social support. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will inform the development and evaluation of a novel SED intervention to improve health outcomes in this population. INTERPRETATION: Oncology nurses may serve as a motivational factor in encouraging men on ADT to reduce SED.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".