Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Self-Rated Health and the Mediating Role of Exercise Among Testicular Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring tenets of basic psychological needs theory, the objective of this study was to examine the association between psychological needs satisfaction, exercise behavior, and physical and mental health among testicular cancer survivors. The present study investigated whether psychological needs satisfaction was directly associated with increased self-rated health, and if this relationship was mediated by engagement in exercise. Testicular cancer survivors ( N = 135; M age = 32.45; SD = 7.63) self-reported current psychological needs satisfaction, exercise behavior, and perceived global physical and mental health during routine oncology visits. Associations were examined using path analysis. Psychological needs satisfaction was a positive correlate of both self-rated physical and mental health in this sample, and exercise mediated the association between needs satisfaction and self-rated physical health. This study supports the assumptions underpinning basic psychological needs theory in this unique clinical population. Based on the findings, exercise engagement represents one mechanism associated with perceived health after cancer. Supportive care interventions should aim to enhance satisfaction of psychological needs and investigate exercise as a mechanism underpinning the relationship between needs satisfaction and perceived health in testicular cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".