Fee-for-Service Cancer Rehabilitation Programs Improve Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rigorously applied exercise interventions undertaken in a research setting result in improved health-related quality of life (hrqol) in cancer survivors, but research to demonstrate effective translation of that research to practice is needed. The objective of the present study was to determine the effect of fee-for-service cancer rehabilitation programs in the community on hrqol and on self-reported physical activity and its correlates. METHODS: After enrolment and 17 ± 4 weeks later, new clients (n = 48) to two fee-for-service cancer rehabilitation programs completed the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (rand-36: rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, U.S.A.), the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire, and questions about physical activity correlates. Normal fee-for-service operations were maintained, including a fitness assessment and individualized exercise programs supervised in a group or one-on-one setting, with no minimum attendance required. Fees were associated with the assessment and with each exercise session. RESULTS: Of the 48 participants, 36 (75%) completed both questionnaires. Improvements in the physical functioning, role physical, pain, and energy/fatigue scales on the rand-36 exceeded minimally important differences and were of a magnitude similar to improvements reported in structured, rigorously applied, and free research interventions. Self-reported levels of vigorous-intensity (p = 0.021), but not moderate-intensity (p = 0.831) physical activity increased. The number of perceived barriers to exercise (p = 0.035) and the prevalence of fatigue as a barrier (p = 0.003) decreased. Exercise self-efficacy improved only in participants who attended 11 or more sessions (p = 0.002). Exercise enjoyment did not change (p = 0.629). CONCLUSIONS: Enrolment in fee-for-service cancer rehabilitation programs results in meaningful improvements in hrqol comparable to those reported by research interventions, among other benefits. The fee-for-service model could be an effective model for delivery of exercise to more cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".