Acceptability of a structured diet and exercise weight loss intervention in breast cancer survivors living with an overweight condition or obesity: A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Weight loss increases survivorship following breast cancer diagnosis. However, most breast cancer survivors (BCS) do not meet diet and exercise recommendations. Aim The purpose of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of BCS who had lymphedema and who participated in a 22‐week weight loss lifestyle intervention. Methods and results Participants completed semi‐structured interviews about barriers and facilitators to intervention adherence. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. Participants (n = 17) were 62 ± 8.0 years of age with a mean body mass index of 34.0 ± 7.1 kg/m2. Four themes emerged: (1) facilitators of intervention adherence, (2) barriers of intervention adherence, (3) continuation of healthy habits post intervention, and (4) recommendations for intervention improvements. Facilitators of intervention adherence were education, social support, routine, motivation, goal‐setting, meal‐provisioning, self‐awareness, and supervised exercise. Barriers to intervention adherence were personal life, health, meal dissatisfaction, seasonality, unchallenging exercises, and exercising alone. All women planned to continue the acquired healthy habits post intervention. Recommendations to improve the study included addressing the exercise regime, meal‐provisioning, and dietary intake monitoring methods. Conclusion Future strategies to engage BCS in weight loss interventions should promote group exercise, offer individualized meal‐provisioning and exercise regimes, provide transition tools, and allow participants to choose their self‐monitoring method.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".