The Effect of the Move More Pack on the Physical Activity of Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a Randomized Waiting List Control Trial with Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity can improve many common side effects of cancer treatment as well as improve physical function and quality of life (QOL). In addition, physical activity can improve survival rate and reduce cancer recurrence. Despite these benefits, only 23% of cancer survivors in England are active to recommended levels. Cancer survivors are interested in lifestyle behavior change. Home-based interventions offer a promising means for changing physical activity behavior. Prediagnosis levels of physical activity and self-efficacy have been reported to be predictors of physical activity behavior change. The Move More Pack, which has undergone revision, is a printed resource with supporting Internet-based tools that aims to increase the physical activity of cancer survivors in the United Kingdom. The revised Move More Pack is underpinned by the theory of planned behavior and the social cognitive theory. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this proposed study was to investigate the effect of the revised Move More Pack, supported by Internet-based tools, on physical activity, self-efficacy, and health-related QOL (HRQOL) of cancer survivors in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This study is a two-arm waiting list randomized control trial with embedded process evaluation. A sample of 99 participants per arm will be recruited by invitation through an email database of cancer survivors held by UK charity Macmillan Cancer Support and an advert placed on the Macmillan Cancer Support Facebook page. Each participant is randomized to receive brief physical activity information and the UK guidelines for physical activity, or brief physical activity information and the revised Move More Pack with supporting Internet-based tools. The intervention and control arm will be followed up at 12 weeks to identify changes in self-reported physical activity, self-efficacy, and HRQOL based on Web-based questionnaires. The control arm will receive the revised Move More Pack at 12 weeks with follow-up at 24 weeks. The intervention arm is followed up at 24 weeks to determine maintenance of reported changes. Subgroup analyses will be completed based on participants' prediagnosis level of physical activity and baseline self-efficacy as possible predictors of positive changes. Use of each component of the revised Move More Pack will be assessed using a 4-point Likert scale. Semistructured phone interviews will evaluate the use and perceived usefulness of the revised Move More Pack. RESULTS: Participant recruitment started in March 2017. Projected completion of this study is October 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings will identify if the proposed low-cost broad reach intervention improves physical activity, self-efficacy, and the HRQOL of cancer survivors. The process evaluation is designed to contextualize the use and perceived usefulness of the revised Move More Pack, help augment its efficient distribution, and identify potential improvements to its design.
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 | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.012 |
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".