MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112339565 · doi:10.1017/s1478951520001327

A scoping review of studies exploring leisure-time physical activity in adults diagnosed with advanced cancer

2020· review· en· W3112339565 on OpenAlexaff
Shirin M. Shallwani, Marie-Christine Ranger, Roanne Thomas, Lucie Brosseau, Stéphane Poitras, Lindsey Sikora, Judy King

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychological interventionCancerOperationalizationPopulationMedicineThematic analysisPsycINFOGerontologyDiseaseMEDLINEPsychologyQualitative researchInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Despite improving survival rates, people with advanced cancer face several physical and psychosocial concerns. Leisure-time physical activity (LPA) has been found to be beneficial after cancer diagnosis, but little is known about the current state of research exploring LPA in advanced cancer. Our objectives were to (a) map the literature examining LPA in people with advanced cancer, (b) report on the terms used to describe the advanced cancer population within the literature, and (c) examine how the concept of LPA is operationalized within the literature. METHOD: Our scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. We performed a search of 11 electronic databases and supplementary sources (February 2018; database search updated January 2020). Two reviewers independently reviewed and selected articles according to the inclusion criteria: English-language journal articles on original primary research studies exploring LPA in adults diagnosed with advanced cancer. Descriptive and thematic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles met our criteria. Most included studies were published in the last decade (80%) and used quantitative methods (77%). Many study populations included mixed (40%), breast (21%), or lung (17%) cancers. Stages 3-4 or metastatic disease were frequently indicated to describe study populations (77%). Several studies (68%) described LPA programs or interventions. Of these, 78% involved structured aerobic/resistance exercise, while 16% explored other LPA types. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This review demonstrates a recent surge in research exploring LPA in advanced cancer, particularly studies examining exercise interventions with traditional quantitative methods. There remains insufficient knowledge about patient experiences and perceptions toward LPA. Moreover, little is known about other leisure activities (e.g., Tai Chi, dance, and sports) for this population. To optimize the benefits of LPA in people with advanced cancer, research is needed to address the gaps in the current literature and to develop personalized, evidence-based supportive care strategies in cancer care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207