MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281898199 · doi:10.4414/smw.2022.w30155

Qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers to centre- and home-based exercise training in breast cancer patients - a Swiss tertiary centre experience

2022· article· en· W4281898199 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Schneider, Sina Reimann, Julia Schmid, Jürg Bernhard, Manuela Rabaglio, Kristin L. Campbell, Matthias Wilhelm, Prisca Eser

Bibliographic record

VenueSwiss Medical Weekly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThematic analysisBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Context (archaeology)PopulationRehabilitationPhysical therapyFamily medicineQualitative researchCancerGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective therapy for breast cancer patients to reduce fatigue and to improve health-related quality of life and physical function. Yet breast cancer patients often do not meet the recommended physical activity guidelines. To better understand why recommendations are not met and to improve long-term physical activity maintenance, this study aimed at identifying facilitators and barriers of breast cancer survivors to supervised, centre-based exercise within a cardio-oncological rehabilitation programme and to unsupervised, home-based exercise both during and after the completion of the programme, as well as strategies used to manage these barriers. METHODS: Breast cancer patients who had previously completed a structured centre-based exercise programme at a Swiss tertiary centre were recruited by mailed invitation letter. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with consenting patients and subsequent thematic analysis was performed to identify common themes. RESULTS: Of the 37 eligible breast cancer patients, 19 patients (51%, mean age 48.9 ± 9.7 years) responded to our invitation. Baseline characteristics did not differ from the total eligible population. General facilitators for exercise were anticipated and experienced benefits on physical and mental health and enjoyment of exercise. Facilitators specific for supervised centre-based exercise were social support, accountability and the provision of structured exercise by the programme. Centre-based exercise barriers included physical, psychological and environmental barriers, whereby psychological barriers were reported predominantly in the context of home-based exercise. Strategies to manage these barriers were diverse and included the adaptation of training circumstances, behaviour change strategies and strategies to deal with side effects. CONCLUSIONS: This first study on facilitators of and barriers to exercise in breast cancer patients in Switzerland identified more barriers, particularly psychological barriers, for unsupervised home-based exercise than for supervised centre-based exercise. These findings support the importance of providing structured supervised exercise programmes for breast cancer patients and suggest that a special focus should be directed at the transition from supervised to self-organized exercise in order to enhance and maintain long-term exercise participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwiss Medical WeeklySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207