Exercise Interventions for Survivors of Cancer Living in Rural or Remote Settings: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Survivors of cancer who are considered “hard to reach” have less engagement in survivorship programming and lower overall health status, well-being, quality of life, and survival. These include individuals who live in rural areas. There is a need to determine the availability, characteristics, feasibility, and effectiveness of exercise programs for individuals with cancer living in rural settings. Purpose: To conduct a scoping review describing the current literature on available exercise programming for survivors of cancer who live in rural or remote settings. Methods: Data Sources: Six databases were searched for studies. Study Selection: 105 abstracts were identified through literature searches; 84 studies remained for title and abstract screening after duplicates were removed. Thirty-three articles were included in full-text review. Data Extraction: Data related to participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, study design, and outcomes were extracted from full texts. Data Synthesis: Descriptive quantitative summaries are provided for result variables, and a narrative analysis was performed. Discussion and Limitations: Thirteen articles were selected for data extraction. The majority of interventions were phone-based walking programs for survivors of breast cancer. The interventions described were held in only 2 countries. The most common outcomes assessed were physical activity level, quality of life, and anxiety/depression. Conclusion: This scoping review highlighted the lack of accessible exercise programs for this subset of hard-to-reach survivors of cancer. This review found that there are few exercise programs accessible for survivors living in rural and remote areas, suggesting one reason for low engagement in physical activity and highlighting the need to devise novel means to implement exercise interventions for this population.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".