Physical Activity and Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study on the Barriers to and Facilitators of Exercise Promotion from the Perspective of Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We determined the barriers to and facilitators of exercise promotion by health care professionals (HCPs) for women with breast cancer (BC). Methods: The study was a qualitative descriptive study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who treat individuals with BC in Ontario. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Two reviewers independently used content analysis to determine codes and themes developed in the interviews. NVivo 10 was used during the coding process. Results: A total of 24 HCPs participated in this study. The data from the interviews were grouped into five main categories: (1) institutional barriers, (2) HCP barriers, (3) perceived patient barriers, (4) facilitators (resource and service needs), and (5) patient characteristics. A graphic depiction of the interaction was created for these categories and how they affect the promotion of exercise for women with BC. Conclusions: Participants in this study identified several barriers to exercise promotion at the institutional, professional, and patient levels and suggested several strategies to facilitate exercise promotion. These findings can inform future exercise interventions to increase exercise adherence and engagement in 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".