Needs, Barriers and Facilitators of Adolescents Participating in a Lifestyle Promotion Program in Oncology: Stakeholders, Adolescents and Parents’ Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatments for adolescent cancer can cause debilitating side effects in the short- and long-term such as nausea and malnutrition but also cardiometabolic disturbances. Although the risk for cardiometabolic complications is greater for adolescents with cancer than younger ones, adolescents typically respond poorly to family-oriented health promotion programs. This study aims to assess the needs, barriers and facilitators to healthy lifestyle promotion interventions for adolescents with cancer and how to best adapt these interventions for them. Interviews were held with adolescents treated for cancer (n = 9) and parents (n = 6), focus groups were conducted with stakeholders working in oncology (n = 12) and self-report questionnaires were sent to stakeholders involved in a health promotion intervention (n = 6). At the time of interview, mean age of adolescent participants (40% female) was 17.0 ± 1.9 years (mean age at diagnosis: 14.6 ± 1.6 years). Verbatim and responses to questionnaires were coded and analyzed using qualitative methods. Stakeholder stated that adolescents with cancer need to access activities adapted to their age, to communicate with peers going through a similar experience, and to preserve their schooling and friendships. Barriers to intervention reported by adolescents, parents and stakeholders include lack of motivation, schedule conflicts, fatigue and treatment side effects. Some of the barriers mentioned by adolescents and parents include pain, post-surgery problems, school, physical deconditioning, and lack of time. Facilitators mentioned by adolescents and parents comprise trust in stakeholders’ expertise, personalized approaches, scheduling flexibility. Stakeholders recommended to build trust in the relationship, favoring non-moralizing teachings, adapt interventions to adolescents’ limited attention span and avoiding the use of long-term health benefits as a motivator.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".