CaRE @ Home: Pilot Study of an Online Multidimensional Cancer Rehabilitation and Exercise Program for Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although facility-based cancer rehabilitation and exercise programs exist, patients are often unable to attend due to distance, cost, and other competing obligations. There is a need for scalable remote interventions that can reach and serve a larger population. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods pilot study to assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact of CaRE@Home: an 8-week online multidimensional cancer rehabilitation and exercise program. Feasibility and acceptability data were captured by attendance and adherence metrics and through qualitative interviews. Preliminary estimates of the effects of CaRE@Home on patient-reported and physically measured outcomes were calculated. Results: A total of n = 35 participated in the study. Recruitment (64%), retention (83%), and adherence (80%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the CaRE@Home intervention. Acceptability was also high, and participants provided useful feedback for program improvements. Disability (WHODAS 2.0) scores significantly decreased from baseline (T1) to immediately post-intervention (T2) and three months post-intervention (T3) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.008). Physical activity (GSLTPAQ) levels significantly increased for both Total LSI (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0002) and moderate to strenuous LSI (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002) from baseline to T2 and T3. Work productivity (iPCQ) increased from T1 to T3 (p = 0.026). There was a significant increase in six minute walk distance from baseline to T2 and T3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and in grip strength from baseline to T2 and T3 (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). Conclusions: Results indicate that the CaRE@Home program is a feasible and acceptable cancer rehabilitation program that may help cancer survivors regain functional ability and decrease disability. In order to confirm these findings, a controlled trial is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".