Activity and advanced cancer: A grounded theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue and loss of physical functioning are distressing symptoms which negatively impact the quality of life of people with advanced cancer. Physical activity has been shown to have positive effects on these symptoms in early-stage cancer, but previous research demonstrated an incongruence between people with advanced cancer's expressed interest and actual participation in a physical activity intervention. AIM: To gain an in-depth understanding of the experience of activity and quality of life in people with advanced cancer, using a classic grounded theory approach. DESIGN: PAL™ activity monitor and completed a daily record sheet, which were then used as qualitative probes for face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 people with advanced cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with a median survival of 100 days from time of study consent, were recruited from an outpatient department of a tertiary cancer centre in Alberta, Canada. FINDINGS: Maintaining their responsibilities, no matter how small, was the prime motive for participants' behaviour. For people with advanced cancer, the minimum level of responsibility was dynamic and unique. It was achieved through a multifaceted interaction between the perceived benefits, prevailing conditions and mechanisms. CONCLUSION: This grounded theory enables understanding of activity as a mechanism through which responsibility is managed and may inform future behavioural interventions in people with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".