Process Evaluation of a Sport-Based Supportive Care Intervention for Testicular Cancer Survivors: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testicular cancer survivors report unmet supportive care needs that are associated with poorer physical and mental health, yet engagement in traditional supportive care is low. The Ball’s in Your Court intervention was designed to engage testicular cancer survivors in supportive care by leveraging a community-based sport and exercise model. Age-appropriate, gender-sensitized, and disease specific elements were reflected in the intervention design, setting, content, and delivery. The intervention included five weekly health promotion sessions among a group of testicular cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to explore the intervention’s (i) feasibility and acceptability, (ii) effects on testicular cancer survivors’ perceived health, and (iii) gain feedback for intervention refinement. A total of 10 testicular cancer survivors participated in the pilot and completed questionnaires on demographics, cancer history, perceived health, and physical activity behavior at baseline (pre-intervention) and perceived health and satisfaction with intervention components (post-intervention). Open-ended feedback surveys were collected after each weekly session and researcher field notes were recorded by three members of the study team. One month following the intervention, a focus group was conducted with intervention participants. All participants were satisfied with the intervention. Content analysis of the qualitative data supported intervention acceptability. Visual analysis conducted at the individual level indicated that perceived health either remained stable or improved from pre- to post-intervention. The Ball’s in Your Court intervention provides a feasible and acceptable approach for the delivery of supportive care aimed at improving testicular cancer survivors’ health and wellness. Recommendations for intervention refinement were provided and require future examination.
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 | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".