A Clinician Referral and 12-Week Exercise Training Program for Men With Prostate Cancer: Outcomes to 12 Months of the ENGAGE Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ENGAGE (efficacy of a referral and physical activity program for survivors of prostate cancer) study established that a clinician referral and 12-week exercise training program increased vigorous physical activity at 12 weeks among men with prostate cancer. Here, we report the 6- and 12-month outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial, we compared a clinician referral and exercise training program to usual care. Discounted gym membership was offered to men in the intervention condition on completion of the 12-week exercise program. Self-reported physical activity at 6 and 12 months was the primary outcome. Quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 147 men meeting eligibility criteria agreed to participate (54 intervention, 93 control). A positive interaction effect for vigorous physical activity was observed at 6 months, but not 12 months. No significant effects for the secondary outcomes were found. CONCLUSIONS: A clinician referral and community-based supervised and unsupervised exercise training program, along with discounted gym membership, had a positive short-term effect on vigorous physical activity levels, but did not improve quality of life, in men with prostate cancer.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".