MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085888974 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037460

Exercise barriers and facilitators during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a qualitative study

2020· article· en· W3085888974 on OpenAlexaff
Mi-Seong Yu, Ki‐Yong An, Ji Yong Byeon, Mee-ok Choi, June‐Won Cheong, Kerry S. Courneya, Justin Y. Jeon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of EducationNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyFeelingAnxietyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationQualitative researchThematic analysisIntervention (counseling)Compliance (psychology)TransplantationNursingPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although exercise is beneficial in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), motivating patients to exercise is challenging. We aimed to understand exercise barriers and facilitators during HSCT treatment while participating in a daily unsupervised exercise programme. PARTICIPANTS: Patients scheduled to have HSCT. STUDY DESIGN: 6 participants were included in this descriptive qualitative study during HSCT treatment while participating in an exercise programme to identify perceived barriers and facilitators of the exercise. An average of three semi-structured interviews were conducted per patient. SETTING: Exercise during HSCT treatment in an isolated immune room. INTERVENTION: Daily unsupervised exercise. RESULTS: A total of six patients completed a 6-week exercise programme as well as all scheduled interviews, whose compliance to the exercise programme ranged from 12% to 79%. Based on interview results, three themes were identified as barriers to exercise and four themes were identified as facilitators to exercise. Patients experienced physical and psychological barriers such as nausea, vomiting, sore throat, reduced appetite, decreased willpower and anxiety due to feelings of isolation. Environmental factors included negative opinions about exercise programmes and lack of encouragement from the haematologist. Facilitators of exercise included willpower, easy and simple exercise, convincing explanations from haematologists and supervised support from exercise specialists. CONCLUSION: Our study has identified potential barriers and facilitators associated with exercise participation during HSCT. Supervised exercise recommended by a haematologist, convincing explanation on the benefit of exercise by medical personnel, positive feedback from other HSCT survivors and supervision by exercise specialists may increase compliance to the exercise programme during HSCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN61498391.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207