MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289333806 · doi:10.1177/1609406915617161

A Grounded Theory Approach to Physical Activity and Advanced Cancer

2015· article· en· W2289333806 on OpenAlexaff
Sonya S. Lowe, Christine Milligan, Sharon Watanabe, Sarah Brearley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryTheoretical samplingContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchQuality of life (healthcare)CancerMedicinePsychologyNursingSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Physical activity has demonstrated benefits in cancer-related fatigue and physical functioning in early-stage cancer patients, however the role of physical activity at the end stage of cancer has not been established. To challenge positivist–empiricist assumptions, I am seeking to develop a new theoretical framework that is grounded in the advanced cancer patient’s experience of activity. Aim: To gain an in-depth understanding of the experience of activity and quality of life in advanced cancer patients. Objectives: (1) To explore the meaning of activity for advanced cancer patients in the context of their day-to-day life, (2) to elicit advanced cancer patients’ perceptions of activity with respect to their quality of life, and (3) to elicit advanced cancer patients’ views of barriers and facilitators to activity in the context of their day-to-day life. Study Design: A two-phase, cross-sectional, qualitative study will be conducted through the postpositivist lens of subtle realism and informed by the principles of grounded theory methods. Study Methods: Advanced cancer patients will be recruited through the outpatient department of a tertiary cancer center. For Phase one, participants will wear an activPAL™ activity monitor and fill out a daily record sheet for seven days duration. For Phase two, the activity monitor output and daily record sheets will be used as qualitative probes for face-to-face, semistructured interviews. Concurrent coding, constant comparative analysis, and theoretical sampling will continue with the aim of achieving as close as possible to theoretical saturation. Ethics and Discussion: Ethical and scientific approval will be obtained by all local institutional review boards prior to study commencement. The findings will generate new mid-level theory about the experience of activity and quality of life in advanced cancer patients and aid in the development of a new theoretical framework for designing interventions for this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.489
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207