MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015475752 · doi:10.1111/jan.14389

A systematic mixed studies review of health behaviour change interventions in colorectal cancer survivors

2020· review· en· W3015475752 on OpenAlexafffund
Molly Sweeney‐Magee, Amina Moustaqim‐Barrette, Carolyn Gotay, Trevor Dummer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINECritical appraisalGrey literatureSystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)Clinical study designAlternative medicineClinical trialNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To explore available health behaviour change interventions in improving key health behaviours in colorectal cancer survivors and patient perspectives about these interventions. DESIGN: A systematic mixed studies review was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched included Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, EBSCO PsychoInfo and EBSCO CINAHL. A grey literature search was also completed using Google Scholar and the TRIP database. Identified studies were published between 2003 - 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A parallel-results convergent synthesis design using narrative syntheses was used. Data analysis was conducted following a process of constant comparison. Quality appraisal was conducted using recognized tools appropriate to different study designs. RESULTS: Sixteen unique studies were identified from an initial search of 354 records. There was a pattern of successful physical activity and dietary change associated with behaviour change interventions of varying intensity, modality and length, but sparse description of intervention content was common. Participants preferred clear explanations of health behaviour importance and for interventions to be administered in sessions either with, or led by, other patients. CONCLUSION: The available evidence tentatively suggests that behaviour change interventions can improve the health behaviours of colorectal cancer survivors. However, more research focused on identifying key intervention elements is needed. Patients indicated clear preferences for specific intervention content and delivery, but further research is needed to allow for the appropriate incorporation of patient preferences into the design of such interventions. IMPACT: This review highlights the potential for interventions to improve health behaviours evidenced to influence short and long-term health outcomes in colorectal cancer survivors. However, the examination of the impact of these interventions and patient perspectives indicated a paucity of research. This is an important finding in demonstrating additional research is necessary to improve the support available to a growing group of patients with complex health needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207