A scoping review of studies exploring leisure-time physical activity in adults diagnosed with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.024 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".