Feasibility of a community-based physiotherapy program for cancer patients during and after treatments in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Physical impairments cause an important functional decline in patient with cancer and survivor. Despite a profound need for physical therapy, many people are unable to access the required services due, in part, to the limited availability of cancer physical therapy programs. The model of community-based rehabilitation presents an opportunity to increase access to outpatient physiotherapy services in Saguenay- Lac-St-Jean. Aim The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a 10-weeks physical therapy program for cancer patients and survivor in the local community. Method A pre-post study was conducted using Bowen’s framework to measure the feasibility of a 10-weeks personalized physical therapy program. Feasibility outcomes focused on demand, acceptability, implementation, practicality and limited-ef cacity. Limited- ef cacity testing was done intra-group from paired comparisons of pre- and post- intervention by calculating mean differences and 95% con dence intervals for normally distributed data or mean and sum of ranks for non-normally distributed data. Results Over 19 months, thirty-one people were contacted and eighteen people completed the program [Mean age 54.54 (SD 12.16)]. The most frequent reasons to explain demand for our program were low muscle endurance, weak muscles, range of motion restrictions, reduced functional capacity, poor sleep quality and pain. Participant attended 94.3% of scheduled appointments. Existing equipment of the not-for- pro t physiotherapy clinic of University of Quebec in Chicoutimi were used to run the program in the community setting. Participants reported high satisfaction and there were no major adverse events. Main barriers to project included COVID-19 restrictions and participants motivation. Participants made gains in pain, functional capacity, muscle strength and walk distance. Conclusions A 10-weeks personalized physical therapy program in Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean community is feasible and safe to improve the physical function and relieve the pain in cancer patients and 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".