Breast Cancer Survivors’ Preferences and Barriers Related to ICT-Based Diet and Physical Activity Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To establish the preferences and perceived barriers related to physical activity and diet programming of breast cancer survivors (BCS) to inform the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-based lifestyle interventions. This was a cross-sectional study of 197 BSC aged 18 years or older and diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or Stage I-IV breast cancer. The BCS were recruited during routine oncology appointments at a Midwestern cancer center. A survey was conducted to query survivors’ level of interest in, preferences for, and perceived barriers to participating in an exercise and dietary intervention program, with a specific emphasis on ICT-based programming. Overall, 85% of BCS reported they would consider participating in exercise and diet intervention research. Approximately 45% of participants reported that they had received diet and/or exercise information as part of their cancer care. However, only 15% of the participants received such information from healthcare professionals with the appropriate expertise (e.g., Dietitian, Exercise Specialist). Over two-thirds of the participants reported frequent use of mobile devices and the internet, and 80% indicated comfort using these devices (e.g., tablet, smart phone). The top three preferred formats for an ICT-based diet and exercise intervention program were “website”, “mobile apps” and “e-mails”. Older participants (>60 years) were more likely to report a preference for e-mails while younger participants (<60 years) were more likely to report a preference for websites or mobile apps. The most common perceived barriers to participation in a lifestyle intervention included fatigue, family responsibility and work. Most BCS in this study were interested in exercise and diet interventions and would be comfortable with an ICT-based format with a preference for delivery via websites, mobile apps or e-mails. Future ICT-based lifestyle interventions should be designed with consideration of BCS’ age, barriers, facilitators and other characteristics. USDA-NIFA Hatch Project 1,011,487
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".