Comparing and contrasting perspectives about support for physical activity among adolescent and young adults with cancer: A dyadic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Most adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors are insufficiently active. Given that AYA cancer survivors' report renewed dependence on their parents, the support (or lack thereof) provided by parents for physical activity (PA) may be a key determinant of PA in this population. As a first step toward understanding and explaining how parents influence their child's PA post-diagnosis, we conducted a qualitative study to explore and contrast AYA cancer survivors' perceptions of the support they receive for PA with their parents' own perceptions of the support they provide. Methods: Ten AYA cancer survivors (Mage=17.4±3.5 years; 70% male) and one of their parents (50% fathers) were interviewed separately. Data were thematically analyzed. Results: Survivors' and parents' perspectives provided differing information that was captured within three broad themes: (1) the basics – encouragement, information, and instrumental support; (2) role-modeling – a double-edged sword; and (3) doing it together – age can matter. AYA cancer survivors appreciated receiving basic forms of support but felt it was least helpful; receiving positive role-modeling and companionship support would have been most helpful. Conversely, parents believed providing basic forms of support would be most helpful and did not recognize that they were important role models. Further, parents hesitated to show interest in participating in PA with their child to prevent behavioural reactance. Conclusion: Our study helps to illustrate that there is a lack of correspondence between AYA cancer survivors and their parents' perceptions of support, and that this may affect AYA cancer survivors' participation in PA.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".