A prospective investigation of the relationship between self-presentation and physical activity in breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the reported benefits of physical activity (PA), most breast cancer survivors (BCS) are inactive. The high prevalence of inactivity in this population highlights the need for studies focused on examining factors related to PA behaviour and, in particular, factors influencing change in PA after completion of treatment. One theoretical perspective that may be useful for examining such factors is a self-presentation perspective. This prospective study: (1) describe changes in self-presentation processes (i.e., impression motivation and construction) and PA over time in BCS, (2) evaluate if BCS' patterns of change differ according to cancer-specific factors, and (3) determine if changes in BCS' self-presentation processes accounted for significant variability in change in PA, after controlling for age and body mass index. Women (n=128; Mage=55.14; Mtime since treatment=3.96 months) completed questionnaires at baseline, and 3 and 6 months later. Repeated measures analyses of variance demonstrated that self-presentation processes remained stable over time, whereas PA levels increased from baseline to 3 months, albeit not significantly, and decreased from 3 to 6 months [Fquadratic(1,127)=2.98, p .05]. Last, separate hierarchical regression analyses revealed that changes in self-presentation processes were not related to change in PA [F(4,123)?2.27, p>.05]. Findings raise questions as to whether self-presentation processes should be conceptualized as state or trait characteristics. Furthermore, they illustrate the need to integrate PA intervention as women approach the six month post-treatment mark. However, it is premature to make conclusions about whether self-presentation can be used as a guiding framework to promote change in PA behaviour in this population.Acknowledgments: The first author is supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a Psychosocial Oncology Research Training Doctoral Award.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".