MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patient-reported Barriers to Exercise and Predictors of Exercise Adherence During Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

2016· article· en· W2462010268 on OpenAlexaff
Kelcey A. Bland, Amy A. Kirkham, Cheri L. Van Patten, Sarah Neil‐Sztramko, Alis Bonsignore, Karen A. Gelmon, Donald C. McKenzie, Kristin L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerPhysical therapyAerobic exerciseQuality of life (healthcare)CancerInternal medicineMarital statusPopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits associated with exercise training during chemotherapy for breast cancer are well known. However, information regarding barriers and adherence to a supervised exercise-training program during cancer treatment is limited. PURPOSE: To describe patient-reported barriers to exercise and identify predictors of adherence to a supervised exercise program during chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Women with early stage breast cancer were enrolled in the Nutrition and Exercise During Adjuvant Treatment trial, a thrice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise program for ≥50% of the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy (8-24 wks). Patient-reported barriers were collected at baseline using a standard exercise barriers questionnaire and are summarized as % of participants who reported barriers ‘often’ or ‘very often.’ Potential predictors of adherence included demographic, quality of life, fitness and medical variables. Program adherence was defined as % of sessions attended. Univariate linear regression was used to determine significant (p < 0.05) and potential (p < 0.10) predictors of adherence. RESULTS: 68 participants (mean age=51±11 yrs) attended >1 study session, completing a mean of 11 weeks of exercise. The most common patient-reported barriers at baseline were exercise being perceived as boring (31.3%), or not a priority (28%), lack of equipment (21.5%), and fear of injury (21.5%). Intervention adherence to prescribed number of sessions was 64±14%. Marital status (p = 0.04) and having ≥3 comorbidities (β=-24.1, p = 0.01) predicted significantly lower adherence. Income >$80,000 (β=+14.9, p=0.03), university education (β=+17.7, p = 0.04) and higher physical functioning (β = +0.5, p= 0.02) predicted significantly higher adherence. Trends in adherence were also observed in those who had higher baseline physical activity (β = +0.2, p = 0.05), a child as a caregiver (β = -8.3, p = 0.09) and a diagnosis of hypertension (β = -8.0, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise being perceived as boring or not a priority, access to equipment, and fear of injury are important barriers to address in exercise program design. Furthermore, determining demographic factors linked to adherence may allow for identifying individuals with greater adherence challenges and adapting interventions accordingly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→