Mechanisms of Physical Activity Behavior Change for Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is beneficial for prostate cancer survivors. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms of physical activity (PA) behavior change is imperative. Purpose: The ENGAGE study was an exercise intervention for prostate cancer survivors, which improved vigorous physical activity (VPA) at postintervention and follow-up. The purpose of this study was to assess (a) whether the intervention improved social cognitive determinants of behavior and (b) the extent to which social cognitive determinants mediated the effect of the exercise intervention on VPA. Methods: Overall, 147 men consented to be involved in the study (intervention = 54, usual care = 93). Data from baseline, postintervention (12 weeks) and follow-up (6 months) were used in this analysis. Social cognitive determinants were measured using appropriate measures. VPA was measured using an adapted version of the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire. Results: Compared with the control condition, men in the intervention condition had higher task self-efficacy postintervention (+16.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] +9.19 to +23.31; effect size [d] = 0.85, p < .001) and at follow-up (+12.58; 95% CI = +4.45 to +20.71, d = 0.50, p = .002). Task self-efficacy partially mediated the effect of the exercise intervention on VPA (indirect effect: B = 19.90; 95% CI 1.56 to 38.25, p = .033). Conclusion: The intervention improved the belief among prostate cancer survivors that they could perform challenging exercises for longer periods of time, which partially explained the positive effect of the intervention on VPA. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration: ACTRN12610000609055.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".