MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2623408087

Breast cancer survivors' perspectives of a group-based physical activity program

2014· article· en· W2623408087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda Wurz, Anik St-Aubin, Jennifer Brunet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingThematic analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Breast cancerPsychologyPopulationSocial supportQualitative researchGerontologyPsychology of selfMedicineCancerSocial psychologyPsychotherapistSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular physical activity (PA) for women treated for breast cancer can improve length and quality of life by reducing the risk of chronic diseases, disability, and mortality. However, most women are inactive or insufficiently active post-treatment. Structured group-based PA programs offered within the community can be an effective strategy to promote PA in this population, as well as improve social, psychological, and physical wellbeing. To encourage participation in such programs, it is necessary to understand barriers and motives related to women’s participation to ensure group-based PA programs are successful in the long-term. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the perceived barriers and motives experienced by women attending an 8-week group-based PA program offered within a community setting. Women who had completed treatment for breast cancer (N = 7; Mage = 55.29 years) participated in two semi-structured interviews during the first and last week the program. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes of barriers and motives (Braun & Clark, 2006). The identified barriers could be subdivided into factors external (i.e., environmental, competing roles and responsibilities) and internal (i.e., physical, cancer-specific) to the women while the identified motives were internal (i.e., gaining social support, being around similar others, feeling a sense of personal fulfillment, acquiring health benefits, feeling a sense of normality, gaining a sense of control over one’s life). Findings provide further evidence that group-based PA programs can be beneficial as a strategy to enhance wellbeing while increasing PA levels in breast cancer survivors. Further, they underscore the need for health professionals designing and delivering such programs to be aware of the perceived barriers and motives to optimize participation in group-based PA in this population. Acknowledgments: This manuscript was prepared while a Canadian Cancer Society Career Development Award in Prevention supported the third author.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→