Acceptability and satisfaction of project move: A pragmatic feasibility trial aimed at increasing physical activity in female breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite the physical and psychological health benefits associated with physical activity (PA) for breast cancer (BC) survivors, up to 70% of female BC survivors are not meeting minimum recommended PA guidelines. The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and satisfaction with Project MOVE, an innovative approach to increase PA among BC survivors through the combination of microgrants and financial incentives. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used. Participants were BC survivors with a mean age of 58.5 years. At 6 month follow-up, participants (n=72) completed a program evaluation questionnaire and participated in focus groups (n=10) to explore their experience with Project MOVE. Results: Participants reported that they were satisfied with Project MOVE (88%) and that the program was appropriate for BC survivors (92%). Four main themes emerged from the focus groups: 1) Acceptability and satisfaction of Project MOVE, detailing the value of the model in developing tailored group-based PA programs; 2) The importance of Project MOVE leaders, highlighting the importance of a leader with knowledge and experience concerning PA for BC survivors, 3) Breaking down barriers with Project MOVE, describing how the program helped to address common BC related barriers (i.e., body image) as well as practical barriers (i.e.,cost), and 4) Motivation to MOVE, outlining how the microgrants enabled survivors to be active, while the financial incentive motivated them to increase and maintain their PA. Conclusion: The findings provide support for the acceptability of Project MOVE as a strategy for increasing PA among BC survivors.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant #702913)
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".