MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285731221 · doi:10.2196/38553

Efficacy of Group Exercise–Based Cancer Rehabilitation Delivered via Telehealth (TeleCaRe): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4285731221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy M Dennett, Katherine E. Harding, Casey L. Peiris, Nora Shields, Christian J. Barton, Lauren Lynch, Phillip Parente, David Lim, Nicholas F. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthPhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialTelerehabilitationTelecareMedicineProtocol (science)Physical medicine and rehabilitationTelemedicineAlternative medicineHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Access to rehabilitation to support cancer survivors to exercise is poor. Group exercise-based rehabilitation may be delivered remotely, but no trials have currently evaluated their efficacy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a group exercise-based cancer rehabilitation program delivered via telehealth compared to usual care for improving the quality of life of cancer survivors. METHODS: A parallel, assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with embedded cost and qualitative analysis will be completed. In total, 116 cancer survivors will be recruited from a metropolitan health network in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The experimental group will attend an 8-week, twice-weekly, 60-minute exercise group session supervised via videoconferencing supplemented by a web-based home exercise program and information portal. The comparison group will receive usual care including standardized exercise advice and written information. Assessments will be completed at weeks 0 (baseline), 9 (post intervention), and 26 (follow-up). The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at week 9. Secondary measures include walking capacity (6-minute walk test), physical activity (activPAL accelerometer), self-efficacy (Health Action Process Approach Questionnaire), and adverse events. Health service data including hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and emergency department presentations will be recorded. Semistructured interviews will be completed within an interpretive description framework to explore the patient experience. The primary outcome will be analyzed using linear mixed effects models. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. RESULTS: The trial commenced in April 2022. As of June 2022, we enrolled 14 participants. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will inform the future implementation of cancer rehabilitation by providing important data about efficacy, safety, cost, and patient experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001417875; https://tinyurl.com/yc5crwtr. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/38553.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.013

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.424 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→