Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of Adding Behavioral Counseling to Supervised Physical Activity in Kidney Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supervised physical activity (PA) improves short-term health outcomes in cancer survivors, but longer-term adherence is rarely achieved. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding behavioral counseling to supervised PA in kidney cancer survivors (KCSs). METHODS: Thirty-two KCSs were randomized to a 4-week supervised PA program plus standard exercise counseling (SPA + EC group; n = 16) or a 4-week supervised PA plus behavioral counseling based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (SPA + BC group; n = 16). The primary outcome was self-reported PA at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, anthropometric measures, cardiorespiratory fitness, and physical function. RESULTS: Follow-up rates for outcomes at 12 weeks were 88% and 94% for fitness testing and questionnaires, respectively. Adherence to the interventions was 94% in both groups with a 6% attrition rate. Analyses of covariance revealed that PA minutes at 12 weeks favored the SPA + BC group by +34 minutes (95% confidence interval, -62 to 129), which was a small effect size (d = 0.21) not reaching statistical significance (P = .47). Moreover, the SPA + BC group increased their 6-minute walk by 48 m more than the SPA + EC group (95% confidence interval, 1-95; d = +0.64; P = .046). There were no significant changes in quality of life measures. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides preliminary evidence that adding behavioral counseling to supervised PA in KCSs is feasible and may improve PA and fitness in the short-term. Larger and longer-term trials are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology nurses may consider adopting behavioral counseling strategies in addition to supervised PA to motivate KCSs to maintain PA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".