“Running with cancer”: a qualitative study to evaluate barriers and motivations in running for female oncological patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that low physical activity levels are associated with an increase in terms of both disease recurrence and mortality in cancer survivors. In this light, deciphering those factors able to hamper or facilitate an active lifestyle is crucial in order to increase patients’ adherence to physical activity. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and motivations in a sample of female oncological patients, practising running using the ecological model and compare them with healthy controls. Focus group interviews were conducted at Verona University. Participants were 12 female cancer survivors and 7 matched healthy controls who had participated at “Run for Science” project. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Two main themes, motivations and barriers were found. About motivations, three sub-themes were identified: personal, interpersonal and environmental/organizational factors. Regarding barriers, another sub-theme was recognized: community/policy factors. Compare to healthy controls, survivors expressed motivations and barriers specifically related to their oncological disease. Running was a challenge with their cancer and a hope to give to other patients. Main barriers were represented by treatment-related side effects, inexperienced trainers and external factors, e.g. delivery of incorrect information. Running program dedicated to oncological patients should consider intrinsic obstacles, related to cancer and its treatment, offering a personalized intervention performed by qualified trainers, together with a motivational approach able to improve participants’ adherence to an active lifestyle.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".