Association Between Physical Activity and Use of Complementary Medicine by Female Oncology Patients in an Integrative Palliative Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the association between physical activity and the reported use of complementary medicine by patients with breast and gynecological cancer referred or self-referred to a complementary/integrative medicine (CIM) consultation within a palliative care context. Methods: Retrospective observational study analyzing the medical files of patients referred to a CIM consultation provided within a specialized integrative oncology clinic for demographic and cancer-related parameters; participation in physical exercise and activities; and current use of nonconventional medical practices. Quality of life (QoL) outcomes were assessed during the initial CIM consultation by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) tool. Results: Among the 162 patient files examined, participation in physical activities was reported in 152, of whom 83 were identified as active and 69 inactive according to the American Cancer Society guidelines. A logistic multivariate regression model showed that physical activity was associated with higher rates of herbal/dietary supplement use for noncancer-related outcomes (odds ratio = 7.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6–32.46, p = 0.01); more frequently reported use of acupuncture for cancer-related outcomes (odds ratio = 7.79, 95% CI 1.93–31.5, p = 0.004); and lower ESAS scores for well-being (odds ratio = 0.77, 95% CI 1.0.65–0.92, p = 0.004), indicating better QoL. Conclusion: Physical activity was found to be associated with a greater use of CIM (specifically herbal/dietary supplement use and acupuncture) in patients with breast and gynecological cancer during oncology treatment. Further research is needed to explore whether CIM use and physical activity are influenced by patients' health-belief models of care, and whether the CIM consultation can promote physical activity among these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".