Mixed Methods Pilot Study of Peri-Diagnostic Exercise Behaviour Change Among Women With Suspected Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 1 in 9 Canadian women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime (CCS, 2013). Over the past 30 years, population-based screening programs have contributed to decreased mortality rates (CCS, 2013), however the psychosocial sequelae associated with screening for breast cancer cannot be ignored (Holland et al., 2010). Although the majority of women screened will receive a benign diagnosis, the threat of malignancy can induce elevated levels of distress (Andrykowski et al., 2002).\nWe conducted a mixed methods pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a 6-week self-managed exercise behaviour change intervention to attenuate distress in women with suspected breast cancer during the peri-diagnostic phase (N = 7). Patients were recruited through the Breast Care Program of St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, Ontario. Facility-based exercise sessions and assessments were completed at the Exercise and Health Psychology Laboratory at the University of Western Ontario. Using concurrent mixed methods, we explored illness representations and coping responses among the women who participated in the program at one week and 12 weeks post-biopsy. Qualitative interviews were conducted with all participants at the one month follow-up study visit, and with clinic personnel at the recruitment site (N = 5).\nAlthough the small sample size precludes computation of meaningful inferential statistics, self-reported exercise behaviour increased and subjective distress decreased from pre- to post-intervention. A deductive qualitative analysis revealed that exercising during the peri-diagnostic phase was an effective coping resource for these women. The inductive analysis revealed emergent themes that illuminated unique characteristics of this sample, e.g., resilience. The findings from this pilot study offer comprehensive insight into the challenges and future considerations associated with implementation of a self-managed exercise intervention for women with suspected breast cancer in the peri-diagnostic phase.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".