The Physical Activity and Fitness in Childhood Cancer Survivors (PACCS) Study: Protocol for an International Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood cancer represent a growing population with a long life expectancy but high risks of treatment-induced morbidity and premature mortality. Regular physical activity (PA) may improve their long-term health; however, high-quality empirical knowledge is sparse. OBJECTIVE: The Physical Activity and Fitness in Childhood Cancer Survivors (PACCS) study comprises 4 work packages (WPs) aiming for the objective determination of PA and self-reported health behavior, fatigue, and quality of life (WP 1); physical fitness determination (WP 2); the evaluation of barriers to and facilitators of PA (WP 1 and 3); and the feasibility testing of an intervention to increase PA and physical fitness (WP 4). METHODS: The PACCS study will use a mixed methods design, combining patient-reported outcome measures and objective clinical and physiological assessments with qualitative data gathering methods. A total of 500 survivors of childhood cancer aged 9 to 18 years with ≥1 year after treatment completion will be recruited in follow-up care clinics in Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. All participants will participate in WP 1, of which approximately 150, 40, and 30 will be recruited to WP 2, WP3, and WP 4, respectively. The reference material for WP 1 is available from existing studies, whereas WP 2 will recruit healthy controls. PA levels will be measured using ActiGraph accelerometers and self-reports. Validated questionnaires will be used to assess health behaviors, fatigue, and quality of life. Physical fitness will be measured by a cardiopulmonary exercise test, isometric muscle strength tests, and muscle power and endurance tests. Limiting factors will be identified via neurological, pulmonary, and cardiac evaluations and the assessment of body composition and muscle size. Semistructured, qualitative interviews, analyzed using systematic text condensation, will identify the perceived barriers to and facilitators of PA for survivors of childhood cancer. In WP 4, we will evaluate the feasibility of a 6-month personalized PA intervention with the involvement of local structures. RESULTS: Ethical approvals have been secured at all participating sites (Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics [2016/953 and 2018/739]; the Oslo University Hospital Data Protection Officer; equivalent institutions in Finland, Denmark [file H-19032270], Germany, and Switzerland [Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland, project ID: 2019-00410]). Data collection for WP 1 to 3 is complete. This will be completed by July 2022 for WP 4. Several publications are already in preparation, and 2 have been published. CONCLUSIONS: The PACCS study will generate high-quality knowledge that will contribute to the development of an evidence-based PA intervention for young survivors of childhood cancer to improve their long-term care and health. We will identify physiological, psychological, and social barriers to PA that can be targeted in interventions with immediate benefits for young survivors of childhood cancer in need of rehabilitation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35838.
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 | 0.043 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.014 |
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".