Body-Related Shame and Guilt Predict Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To test body-related shame and guilt as predictors of breast cancer survivors' (BCS') moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) during six months and to examine motivational regulations as mediators of this association. . DESIGN: Prospective study. . SETTING: Survivors were recruited through advertisements and oncologist referrals from medical clinics and hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. . SAMPLE: 149 female BCS. . METHODS: Self-reports of body-related shame and guilt, motivational regulations, and MVPA were measured among BCS at baseline. MVPA was assessed a second time six months later. Residual change scores were used. . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Body-related shame and guilt; external, introjected, and autonomous (identified and intrinsic) motivational regulations; MVPA. . FINDINGS: In the multiple mediation models, body-related shame was associated with low levels of MVPA, as well as external, introjected, and autonomous motivational regulations. Guilt was related to high levels of MVPA and introjected and autonomous motivational regulations. Indirect effects linked shame, guilt, and MVPA via autonomous motivation. Only body-related shame was a significant predictor of six-month changes in MVPA. . CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the specific emotions of shame and guilt contextualized to the body differentially predict BCS' health motivations and behavior over time. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Survivorship programs may benefit from integrating intervention strategies aimed at reducing body-related shame and helping women manage feelings of guilt to improve physical activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".