Effects of targeted print materials on physical activity and quality of life in young adult cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the effects of a targeted physical activity (PA) print material on PA and quality of life (QoL) in young adult cancer survivor (YACS). Methods: YACS (N=212) were randomly assigned to either the targeted print material (TPAG) or the Canadian PA Guidelines (CPAG). The primary outcome was self-reported PA minutes per week. Secondary outcomes were QoL, stress, self-esteem, and depression. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month and 3 months for PA and at baseline and 3 months for QoL and psychosocial outcomes. Results: At three months, analyses of covariance adjusting for baseline value of the outcome and other covariates showed no differences between the TPAG and CPAG groups for the primary outcome of PA minutes/week (adjusted mean group difference=+8 minutes; 95% CI= -60 to +77; p=.81). The TPAG was superior to the CPAG for the mental component of QoL (adjusted mean group difference=+3.1; 95% CI=+0.1 to +7.3; p=0.043). In an exploratory analysis of YACS reporting less than 300 PA minutes/week at baseline, the TPAG group was superior to the CPAG group at 3 months for PA minutes/week (adjusted mean group difference=+90; 95% CI=+10 to +170; p=.028). Conclusion: A targeted PA print material did not increase PA compared to a generic PA print material in a highly active sample of YACS. In YACS reporting less than 300 minutes of PA at baseline, which is the group of interest from a PA behavior change perspective, the targeted PA print material was effective in increasing PA.Acknowledgments: Lisa Belanger was supported by Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Studentship. Kerry Courneya is supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program. We would like to thank Carol Russell and Lorraine Cormier from the Alberta Cancer Registry for their assistance in conducting this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".