Peer support for the maintenance of physical activity and health in cancer survivors: the PEER trial - a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite an overwhelming body of evidence showing the benefits of physical activity (PA) and exercise for cancer survivors, few survivors meet the exercise oncology guidelines. Moreover, initiating, let alone maintaining exercise programs with cancer survivors continues to have limited success. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the influence of peer support on moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) and various markers of health 12 months following a brief supervised exercise intervention in cancer survivors. METHODS: Men and women previously diagnosed with histologically-confirmed breast, colorectal or prostate cancer (n = 226), who are >1-month post-treatment, will be invited to participate in this trial. Once enrolled, participants will complete 4 weeks (12 sessions) of supervised high intensity interval training (HIIT). On completion of the supervised phase, both groups will be provided with written recommendations and verbally encouraged to achieve three HIIT sessions per week, or equivalent exercise that meets the exercise oncology guidelines. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive 12 months of peer support, or no peer support (control). Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after the 4-week supervised HIIT phase and at 3-, 6- and 12-months. Primary outcomes will include accelerometry-derived MVPA and prescribed HIIT session adherence; whilst secondary outcomes will include cardiorespiratory fitness ([Formula: see text]), body composition, quality of life and select cytokines, myokines and inflammatory markers. Random effects mixed modelling will be used to compare mean changes in outcomes between groups at each time point. A group x time interaction will be used to formally test for differences between groups (alpha =0.05); utilising intention-to-treat analyses. DISCUSSION: If successful, peer support may be proposed, adopted and implemented as a strategy to encourage cancer survivors to maintain exercise beyond the duration of a short-term, supervised intervention. A peer support-exercise model has the long-term potential to reduce comorbidities, improve physical and mental wellbeing, and significantly reduce the burden of disease in cancer survivors. ETHICS: Human Research Ethics Committee of Bellberry Ltd. (#2015-12-840). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry 12618001855213 . Retrospectively registered 14 November 2018. Trial registration includes all components of the WHO Trial Registration Data Set, as recommended by the ICMJE.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".