MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Implementation of an exercise behavior change clinic for men with prostate cancer: Baseline results.

2017· article· en· W2599804073 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Weller, Maria Spillane, Phil Pollock, Monita Sundar, Larry Goldenberg, Lindsay Hedden, Celestia S. Higano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightPhysical therapyProstate cancerSurvivorship curveWaistCancerBody mass indexFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

169 Background: Regular physical activity (PA) and resistance training (RT) has been shown to improve the health of prostate cancer survivors (PCS), however participation rates are low. To address survivorship needs and support behaviour change, the Prostate Cancer Supportive Care (PCSC) program implemented an Exercise Physiology (EP) clinic using one-on-one exercise counselling. Our objective was to understand the PA and RT characteristics of PCS and examine the effect of an EP clinic on behaviour change. Methods: After enrolment in the PCSC program, PCS were offered a consultation with an Exercise Physiologist. Subsequent consultations occurred at 3, 6 and 12 months. Clinical data collected at each consultation included physical measures, stage of change (TTM), current exercise (GLTEQ and exercise summary), fatigue (FACIT Fatigue and SIFIR), barriers and facilitators to exercise and a safety screening (PAR-Q+). Information was used during the EP clinic to set PA goals and create an action plan for behaviour change, reviewed each visit. Results: 71 PCS, median age 67 (range 50-86) attended the EP clinic between July 2015 and August 2016. 76% had received primary treatment and 24% were on active surveillance. At first consultation, 63% had an at-risk health profile, with an average BMI of 27kg/m2 (overweight), average waist circumference of 102.6cm (high) and insufficient PA, with only 15% meeting both PA and RT guidelines (150 mins moderate-to-vigorous PA and 2 RT sessions weekly). Average reported fatigue was moderate (4/10 on SIFIR). Stage of change (TTM) showed 44% of PCS at pre-contemplation, contemplation or preparation stages and 54% at action or maintenance stages. Self-reported barriers to exercise included lack of time (24%), laziness (19.7%) and fatigue (18%), while exercising with a spouse/friend/team was the main facilitator to exercise (16.9%). Conclusions: The baseline PA and RT levels of EP clinic PCS is similar to population norms in that the majority of PCS are not meeting current guidelines. Our results demonstrate that the implementation of an EP clinic is feasible. Future follow-up of this cohort will evaluate whether the program creates sustainable PA behaviour change in PCS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→