Qualitative Evaluation of a Community-Based Physical Activity and Yoga Program for Men Living With Prostate Cancer: Survivor Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) programs for prostate cancer survivors have positive effects on many aspects of health-related quality of life. Translating this research into sustainable community-based settings is necessary to ensure access to programs for survivors. This study examines patient perspectives in the community-based TrueNTH Lifestyle Management (TrueNTH LM) program in Calgary, Canada. METHODS: Eleven men from programs at civic wellness centers participated in 2 small semistructured focus groups (n = 5 and 6) at the University of Calgary. Motivation for program initiation and adherence, benefits and barriers to participation, and individual satisfaction and feedback on program improvement were discussed. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic methodology guided by a pragmatic philosophy on the patient experience in the program. RESULTS: Themes identified included perceived benefits of participating (physical, psychological, and social), facilitators for involvement in the PA program (program design, initial free access, tailored to prostate cancer specific needs, psychosocial environment), and opportunities for improvement and sustainability (exercise as a part of standard care, cost structure, home-based options). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insight into patient perspectives on effective characteristics of prostate cancer and exercise programs. TrueNTH LM has implemented findings, and ensuring needs (benefits and barriers) are addressed for prostate cancer survivors when entering community-based PA programs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".