Characterizing the Exercise Behaviour, Preferences, Barriers, and Facilitators of Cancer Survivors in a Rural Canadian Community: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barriers, facilitators, and motivators to exercise for cancer survivors living in urban settings are well described in the literature. However, there is a lack of comparable information for cancer survivors living in rural communities. We describe the exercise behaviours, barriers, facilitators, and motivators to exercise participation of cancer survivors living in a rural Canadian community. Adult cancer survivors with a primary address in a rural region of Ontario, Canada, who had visited a community hospital in the previous five years were mailed a cross-sectional survey assessing current exercise volume (minutes of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic and resistance exercise), as well as exercise preferences, barriers, and facilitators. Seventy-two survivors (mean age 65 years) completed the survey (16% response rate). A majority of respondents were diagnosed with breast cancer (49%) in the last 5 years (61%). Aerobic- and resistance-training guidelines for cancer survivors were met by 38% and 10% of respondents, respectively. Physical side effects were the most common barrier to exercise during treatment (65%) and post-treatment (35%). Being unaware of available exercise programs, time for exercise, distance to exercise services, and cost were commonly reported barriers during and post-treatment (reported by 10-22%). Respondents reported needing information from a qualified exercise professional (46%), access to a gym (33%) and exercise equipment (26%), and social support (25%) to facilitate exercise participation. Consistent with urban-based cancer survivors, most rural survivors surveyed in this study were not meeting the physical-activity guidelines and reported numerous exercise barriers. These findings can serve as a resource for this and similar rural communities when developing community-based exercise-support services for 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".