Motivational effects of an Internet-delivered physical activity behaviour change program in Nova Scotian cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Previously, we reported the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an internet-delivered physical activity (PA) behaviour change program among cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to examine effects of this program on motivation. Methods: 95 cancer survivors were randomized into either UCAN, a Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) based PA behaviour change program, or usual care (UC). We examined mean change (MC) in motivational outcomes and underlying beliefs from baseline to post-intervention using ANCOVAs. Results: UCAN reported lower TPB outcomes than UC. Significant negative effects were found for self-efficacy (adjusted MC -0.7; 95% CI= -1.2 to -0.1; d=-0.53, p=.019), affective attitude (AMC -0.4; 95% CI= -0.8 to -0.0; d=-0.45, p=.044), and instrumental attitude (AMC -0.5; 95% CI= -0.9 to -0.1; d=-0.43, p=.026). Significant negative effects were found among the underlying control beliefs for bad weather (AMC -0.8; 95% CI= -1.6 to -0.1; d=-0.49, p=.030), medical or health issues (AMC -0.7; 95% CI= -1.3 to -0.1; d=-0.48, p=.031), pain or soreness (AMC -0.7; 95% CI= -1.4 to -0.1; d=-0.52, p=.020), family responsibilities (AMC -1.0; 95% CI= -1.7 to -0.3; d=-0.62, p=.005), or PA becoming boring (AMC -0.8; 95% CI= -1.4 to -0.1; d=-0.54, p=.016). Conclusions: UCAN had a negative effect on motivational outcomes despite small beneficial effects on PA in the primary paper. These contradictory findings may be explained by methodological issues related to the measurement of motivation and to the specific intervention used in UCAN. Further research is needed before testing in a large scale phase III trial.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program held by Kerry Courneya.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".