The role of social support in physical activity for cancer survivors: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social support is conceptualized and operationalized in many ways, making it challenging to understand what types of support best predict physical activity (PA) in cancer survivors. This review examined associations between social support and PA among cancer survivors. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched eight databases for studies that reported an association between social support and PA among adult cancer survivors. We conducted an appraisal and a narrative synthesis of the findings from quantitative studies. RESULTS: Fifty studies representing 28 366 participants were included. Studies collectively included concepts addressing the presence of relationships, others' PA behavior, perceptions of being supported, and function/quality. Findings were mixed in suggesting a positive or null association with PA. CONCLUSIONS: While results are not definitive, this review takes a step toward mapping the social support literature in PA for cancer survivors. Limitations include the homogeneity of the participants in extant studies, and the secondary focus on testing the effects of social support on outcomes. Future research systematically testing the effects of social support is important for facilitating PA in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".