Evaluation Tools for Physical Activity Programs for Childhood Cancer: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the benefits of physical activity (PA) in childhood cancer has been translated into a handful of community-based programs. However, to foster further translation, an understanding of how to evaluate participant outcomes would be beneficial to provide feedback to participants and stimulate future research. Such a review would provide a summary of acceptable tools for work in this area. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the evaluation tools that have been used in PA/exercise studies or programs for childhood cancer. This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies included in the review used physical and psychosocial evaluation tools within PA and exercise programs or research for childhood cancer. In addition, studies with measures of health behavior such as PA levels and activities of daily living were included. Tools that assessed physical fitness and physical performance were excluded. Information on the types of evaluation tools used, mean age of participants, and type of cancer was extracted. Psychometric properties of each evaluation tool are reported. The most commonly assessed patient outcomes were motor performance, fatigue, well-being, functional mobility, and quality of life. Less commonly reported patient outcomes were hope, self-efficacy, and self-perception. None of the evaluation tools reported in the PA/exercise and pediatric oncology literature assess physical literacy. This review was the first step in a knowledge translation process, identifying evaluation tools that have been used in PA/exercise programs in childhood cancer survivors, that will guide the development and evaluation of current and future community-based programs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".