Motivation for Different Types and Doses of Exercise During Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is beneficial for breast cancer patients during chemotherapy, but their motivation to perform different types and doses of exercise is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the anticipated and experienced motivation of breast cancer patients before and after three different exercise programs during chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast cancer patients initiating chemotherapy (N = 301) were randomized to a standard dose of 25-30 min of aerobic exercise, a higher dose of 50-60 min of aerobic exercise, or a combined dose of 50-60 min of aerobic and resistance exercise. Patient preference and motivational outcomes from the theory of planned behavior (i.e., perceived benefit, enjoyment, support, difficulty, and motivation) were assessed before and after the interventions. RESULTS: At pre-randomization, breast cancer patients were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to prefer the combined program (80.1 %); however, after the interventions there was a significant (p < 0.001) increase in the number of patients preferring the high volume program and having no preference. At pre-randomization, breast cancer patients anticipated more favorable motivational outcomes for the combined program and less favorable motivational outcomes for the high volume program (all p < 0.001). After the interventions, the motivational outcomes experienced exceeded the anticipated motivational outcomes significantly more in the high volume group than the standard or combined groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipated motivational outcomes for different types and doses of exercise during chemotherapy varied considerably at pre-randomization, but the motivational outcomes experienced after the three interventions were similar. Clinicians can recommend any of the three exercise interventions to breast cancer patients knowing that positive motivational outcomes will result. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00249015 .
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) | 0.002 | 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".