Determinants of Physical Activity Maintenance in Breast Cancer Survivors After a Community-Based Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine whether empirically selected and social cognitive theory-based factors, including baseline characteristics and modifiable behavioral and psychosocial factors, were determinants of physical activity (PA) maintenance in breast cancer survivors (BCSs) six months after a PA intervention. . DESIGN: Single-group longitudinal study. . SETTING: The Breast Health Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. . SAMPLE: 42 survivors with stage 0-III breast cancer who completed chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. . METHODS: The community-based PA intervention included six weekly education and practice sessions on home-based aerobic, resistance, balance, and flexibility exercises. . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: The dependent variable, PA maintenance, was determined based on PA level measurement at six months postintervention. The independent variables of baseline characteristics (age, stage of cancer, and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms) and modifiable behavioral and psychosocial factors (PA level, fatigue, PA self-efficacy in overcoming barriers and performing tasks) were assessed at baseline and postintervention. . FINDINGS: Multivariate regression analyses revealed that baseline fatigue and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms were the only factors significantly associated with PA maintenance. . CONCLUSIONS: Baseline fatigue level and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms were significant determinants of PA maintenance in breast cancer survivors who had completed a community-based PA intervention. However, other key factors were considered. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Prior to participation in community-based PA interventions, clinicians should take into account the effects of high baseline fatigue levels and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms on potential PA maintenance, and consider additional assessments and support for BCSs to sustain their PA behavioral change. .
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 | 0.000 | 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".