Community-Based Exercise Programs for Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review of Program Characteristics Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of exercise programs for survivors of cancer conducted outside of a research laboratory (ie, home-based or community-based settings). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of published literature was conducted using Medline, Pubmed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, SPORTdiscus, and Embase from 1980 to January 2021. Where conference abstracts were identified, authors were contacted for other articles. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility, with discrepancies resolved by discussion. Included studies were reports of exercise programs or interventions in which participants exercise at home or in a community-based setting and including individuals diagnosed with cancer either undergoing treatment or who had completed treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using the Oxford Implementation Index and coded under the 5 domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Extraction and coding were completed by 2 independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data were synthesized narratively according to CFIR. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 58 publications describing 34 individual programs from around the world were included. Of these, only 14 publications had the specific goal of reporting on program implementation and development. A variety of intervention characteristics and characteristics of individuals involved in the intervention were described. Reporting of factors related to the CFIR domains of inner setting, outer setting, and implementation process were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes the characteristics of existing programs that have been reported in the literature and finds that partnerships and collaboration occur in the inner and outer settings and as part of the process of implementation. This review highlights key knowledge gaps to be answered to support the development of future community-based interventions.
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 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".