The effect of social support in physical activity interventions on physical activity and quality of life among cancer survivors: A systematic review of randomized control trials and quasi-experimental studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social support is associated with physical activity and quality of life among cancer survivors. However, it is conceptualized and operationalized in a variety of ways. This makes it challenging to understand how it contributes to exercise intervention outcomes. This systematic review examined the role of social support in physical activity and quality of life outcomes of cancer survivors participating in exercise interventions. Using PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al. 2009) we searched multiple databases for studies addressing social support, and physical activity and/or quality of life in adult cancer survivors. N=38 RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were retrieved. Interventions that included components intended to enhance support for exercise and/or coping with cancer (psychosocial education, peer support, behavior change education, group exercise) often increased physical activity and quality of life. However, most research assessed multi-component interventions, making it difficult to discern the contribution of each supportive component. There was also some evidence that interventions including a supportive component increased self-reported social support. Intervention effects on physical activity were enhanced for participants who had a larger social network. Evidence on whether marital status moderated the effects of interventions on quality of life was equivocal. Increased social support from family, online peers, other participants, and one's social network during interventions was associated with greater increases in physical activity, suggesting social support may mediate intervention effects. Future research is needed addressing how interventions contribute to the development of different forms of social support, and identifying the mediating and moderating supportive mechanism in this context.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge assistance from Alix Hayden, University of Calgary Librarian, and support from a University of Calgary Faculty of Kinesiology seed grant.
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 | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".