Exercise interventions and their effect on masculinity, body image, and personal identity in prostate cancer—A systematic qualitative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Men with prostate cancer face various body composition and psychosocial challenges following diagnosis. Movement-based interventions such as exercise may represent novel strategies to improve these important biopsychosocial changes. This systematic qualitative review aimed to examine the various exercise interventions and their effect on male perception of masculinity, body image, and personal identity. METHODS: A systematic search across nine electronic databases was conducted in July 2017 and repeated in August 2018. Eligible studies included qualitative works examining masculinity, body image, or personal identity within an exercise intervention. Thematic content analysis allowed for qualitative synthesis across numerous studies. RESULTS: Six studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Four interventions used multimodal aerobic and resistance training, one incorporated aerobic exercise through football practice, and one utilized a home-based aerobic plus yoga program. Exercise was implicated to improve masculinity through creation of a safe community, allowed for refocusing on valued male traits, provided a source of distraction, and offered a means of establishing control over one's illness. Exercise also facilitated a process of self-reflection secondary to changes in physique and helped to re-establish male self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of prostate cancer stage, treatment status, or prior androgen deprivation therapy exposure, both aerobic or aerobic and resistance training exerted positive effects on perceived feelings of masculinity, body image, and personal identity.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".