Coping strategies in active and inactive men with prostate cancer: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer can result in a shift in the way men perceive their masculinity. Despite the interest in exercise as a treatment strategy to address masculinity concerns, there is insufficient information about how perceptions may differ in active and inactive men. The aim of this study was to explore how exercise might influence self-perceptions of masculinity in men across the exercise continuum (from active to inactive) and in men receiving different forms of treatment for their prostate cancer, including androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 men. Ten men met aerobic and/or resistance guidelines and were considered active, while five men, considered inactive, reached neither guideline. This study used a grounded theory approach to data analysis, examining masculinity issues in active men and compared them to inactive men. RESULTS: Redefining masculinity emerged as an overarching theme. Subthemes were the various coping strategies men used to redefining masculinity and directly related to their exercise habits. Coping subthemes included re-establishing control, tapping into competition, remaining socially connected, rationalization, and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: In the active men, dominant coping strategies achieved from exercise included control through active participation, acceptance, competition, and leadership. In inactive men, control was observed with knowledge-seeking behaviors, rationalization, and acceptance. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A tailored approach to exercise counseling based upon specific masculine traits and motivations could lead to improved exercise engagement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".