A qualitative meta-study of social support in physical activity for adult cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is important for physical well-being, quality of life, and coping among cancer survivors. Social support plays a role in physical activity experiences in this population, in terms of encouraging adoption and maintenance of physical activity behaviour, and that physical activity programs can be important sources of social support for coping with cancer. Many qualitative studies have examined cancer survivors' lived experience with social support in the context of physical activity. The purpose of this meta-study was to synthesize the research on cancer survivors' lived experience with social support related to physical activity. Following recommendations for meta-study procedures (Paterson et al., 2001) we searched nine databases and retrieved 48 qualitative studies addressing social support and physical activity in adult cancer survivors. Common ways in which peer survivors provided support included creating a positive environment, sharing first-hand experiences with cancer, and commitment to exercise together, while support from exercise leaders included providing knowledgeable, safe activity experiences, and teaching and empowering participants. Findings were shaped by variations in method across studies, such as sampling frame (i.e., exercise intervention participants, community programs, or lifestyle physical activity), and theoretical perspectives adopted. This study synthesizes themes representing social support processes in physical activity, discusses study elements that shape perspectives on the findings, and identifies directions for future qualitative study.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 | 0.084 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".