Nordic Pole Walking for Individuals With Cancer: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing Physical Function and Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals with a diagnosis of cancer tend to be inactive and have symptoms that impact quality of life. An individualized, community-based Nordic pole walking (NPW) program may help. Methods: Primary Objective: To assess feasibility using the Thabane framework of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Secondary Objective: To determine the effects of NPW on physical function (Six-Minute Walk Test [6MWT], 30-second [30-s] chair stand test, Unsupported Upper-Limb Exercise Test, handgrip strength, physical activity [PA]), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]). The Study Design: An 8-week multicentered block RCT (no blinding) comparing a community-based NPW program (vs usual daily routine) for adults with non-small cell lung, prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancer. Results: Eight individuals were enrolled in the study with n = 4 per group (1 dropout in the NPW arm; = 67 ± 6 years). The study was deemed “feasible with modifications.” NPW significantly improved (statistically and clinically) the 30-s chair stand test when compared with baseline. There was improved 6MWT, PA levels, and SF-36 when compared with the control group (not statistically significant). No adverse events occurred. Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions: NPW was feasible for individuals with cancer and may improve physical function, PA, and HRQOL. Larger samples are required to determine efficacy and/or program effectiveness. Future programs should include collaboration with hospital cancer centers and support groups, promotion of participant and community engagement with NPW, and consideration of the population's unique characteristics. NPW programs should include individualized exercise prescriptions, behavior change techniques, social aspects, HRQOL assessments, and device-measured PA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".