Exploring cancer survivors' experiences in a group-based walking program incorporating behaviour change techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many cancer survivors report difficulties participating in physical activity (PA) regularly. Instructor-led, group-based PA programs can facilitate PA. Yet, behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are infrequently used during group-based programs to increase participants' knowledge and confidence to maintain PA post-program; this may partly explain the limited impact these programs have on PA post-program. We conducted a single-arm study to explore how an 8-week group-based walking program incorporating BCTs within weekly structured small group discussions can help cancer survivors develop an active lifestyle. Methods: Sevenn female cancer survivors (Mage=49.29+/-7.72 years) participated in our program and were interviewed separately after its completion. Data were thematically analyzed. Results: Participants' experiences in our program were organized into three main themes: (1) taking steps for better health, (2) being supportive but not a support group, and (3) gaining competence. Initially, the program was an additional means for participants to accumulate PA as the 'group' created a culture of accountability. However, over time, the on-going encouragement, compassion, and understanding provided by the instructor and other participants was a greater motivator to participate in PA than walking itself. Though the BCTs utilized during the small group discussions (e.g., goal setting) were familiar to most participants, the opportunity to have personal struggles validated and discuss potential solutions amongst peers while learning the BCTs facilitated a sense of competence for PA post-program. Conclusion: Our study helps illustrate the importance of providing a caring social environment and incorporating BCTs into a group-based PA program for cancer survivors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".