A qualitative analysis of oncology clinicians' perceptions and barriers for physical activity counselling in breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few breast cancer survivors (BCS) engage in sufficient physical activity (PA) to gain physical and mental health benefits. This may be due to a lack of appropriate PA information and support. While key messengers of PA information could be oncology clinicians, many do not consistently counsel their patients on PA. Purpose: To examine factors affecting PA counselling in clinicians and inform future strategies. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with clinicians (N=27) at four cancer hospitals to better understand factors that affect PA counselling. Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Clinicians perceived a lack of training and knowledge related to PA and BCS. Clinicians also discussed being unsure of when to integrate PA counselling into different phases of survivorship. Similarly, clinicians experienced barriers from hospital administration to maintain patient flow in-clinic, which decreased opportunities for PA counselling. Additionally, lack of awareness of community-based programs within large areas served by hospitals also decreased clinicians' self-efficacy for counselling. In order to facilitate PA counselling, clinicians wanted resources that promote patient-managed PA, available on multiple platforms (e.g., printed and online). Continued education, highlighting recent research and effective implementation of PA, was noted as an important facilitator. Conclusions: Researchers are encouraged to develop research agendas and test educational strategies that are integrated into current practice, empirically test barriers that developed from this study with a larger, representative sample to determine salient barriers and develop PA counselling strategies that are clinician-initiated but not dependent on clinicians.Acknowledgments: Funded by a grant from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".