Resistance Exercise and Art Therapy on Body Image in Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatments for breast cancer are invasive, causing visible changes such as loss of the breast, body weight change, and hair loss. These changes in conjunction with the pressure for women to conform to societal beauty standards may lead to body image disturbance in breast cancer survivors (BCS). The aims of this scoping review were to explore the nature, characteristics, and extent of the literature examining resistance exercise or art therapy on body image in BCS; and examine how body image is defined and measured across the studies. Methods: We searched the literature up to January 2020, which included conducting electronic searches of three major databases and checking references of screened articles. Results: Ninety-three articles were identified, 28 underwent full-text screening, with 8 studies eligible for inclusion in the review. Five randomized control trials, one hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial, and two single group studies were found. All studies showed significant within-group difference in body image scores, with two studies showing a between-group difference in favor of resistance exercise. No studies were found combining resistance exercise and art therapy. None of the studies defined the aspect of body image they wished to measure, and only one used theory to inform their research. Discussion: Preliminary evidence supports the benefit of resistance exercise and art therapy as single interventions to improve body image perception among BCS. Findings suggest the need for closer attention to the delivery format of interventions. Future research is needed that is theory-informed, with a clear definition of the aspect of body image of interest, and with body image as the primary outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".