Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Cancer Survivors: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research on the impact of physical activity on quality of life (QoL) in adults diagnosed with cancer is accumulating. However, the field of physical activity and cancer survivorship lack a synthesis of this research to reliably understand the implications for future research and practice. The aim of this meta-synthesis was to identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative research on cancer survivors’ perspectives of the impact of physical activity on their QoL. Seven electronic databases were searched for original studies published in English, and reference lists of relevant studies were hand-searched to identify additional studies. Forty studies met eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-synthesis. Study characteristics and major findings were extracted, and findings were summarized, compared, and synthesized. Themes identified in this review revealed that physical activity positively impacted four dimensions of cancer survivors’ QoL: physical (e.g., managing the physical consequences of cancer and its treatment), psychological (e.g., evoking positive self-perceptions), social (e.g., feeling understood by others), and spiritual (e.g., redefining life purpose). This meta-synthesis corroborates conclusions from reviews of quantitative research and illustrates that physical activity can be used to improve QoL in adult cancer survivors, regardless of diagnosis (i.e., stage, cancer type) and treatment status. It also provides detailed insight into specific aspects within each dimension of QoL impacted by physical activity from cancer survivors’ perspectives, which is important for understanding the meaning and utility of physical activity for them. However, more research is needed to further develop the qualitative evidence base in order to better understand how physical activity impacts on QoL experiences in men, young adults, and adults diagnosed with less common types of cancer at different points along cancer trajectory (i.e., diagnosis, treatment, post-treatment, palliation).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".