MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004781029 · doi:10.1037/hea0000845

Predicting physical activity among cancer survivors: Meta-analytic path modeling of longitudinal studies.

2020· review· en· W3004781029 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Hirschey, Ashley Leak Bryant, Catherine Macek, Cláudio L. Battaglini, Sheila Judge Santacroce, Kerry S. Courneya, Jennifer S. Walker, Aya Avishai, Paschal Sheeran

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsPsychosocialStructural equation modelingPsychologyObservational studyMultilevel modelClinical psychologyPsycINFOMeta-analysisBivariate analysisMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatryStatisticsInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We conducted meta-analyses and meta-analytic structural equation modeling of longitudinal studies among cancer survivors to (a) quantify associations between psychosocial predictors and physical activity, (b) test how psychosocial predictors combine to influence physical activity, and (c) identify study, demographic, and clinical characteristics that moderate associations. METHOD: Eligible studies used a longitudinal, observational design, included a sample of cancer survivors, and measured both a psychosocial predictor at baseline and physical activity at a later time-point. Of 2,431 records located through computerized searches, 25 independent tests (N = 5,897) met the inclusion criteria for the review. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-analytic structural equation modeling were conducted. RESULTS: Eight psychosocial predictors of physical activity were identified. Self-efficacy (r+ = 0.26) and intentions (r+ = 0.33) were the strongest predictors in bivariate analyses. The structural equation models included attitudes, injunctive norms, self-efficacy, intentions, and physical activity (k = 22, N = 4,385). The model with the best fit, χ2(2) = 0.11, p = .95, root mean square error of approximation = .00, comparative fit index = 1.00, Tucker-Lewis index = 1.00, indicated that all specified paths were significant. Intentions were the strongest predictor of physical activity (β = 0.27, p < .001), and attitudes and self-efficacy were strong predictors of intentions (both βs = 0.29, ps < .001). Few significant moderators were observed. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that self-efficacy and intentions are direct predictors of physical activity in cancer survivors. Further, attitudes and norms predict physical activity through intentions. Findings inform intervention development to increase physical activity engagement among cancer survivors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.055
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.422
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207