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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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