MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317625846 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2488848/v1

Breast Cancer Survivors’ Exercise Preferences Change During an Exercise Intervention and are associated with Post-Intervention Physical Activity

2023· preprint· en· W4317625846 on OpenAlexaff
Erica Schleicher, Edward McAuley, Kerry S. Courneya, Phillip Anton, Diane K. Ehlers, Siobhan M. Phillips, Nashira I. Brown, Robert A. Oster, Dori Pekmezi, Laura Q. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Breast cancerMedicinePhysical activityPsychological interventionBehavior changePsychologyCancerInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Exercise program preferences are important for designing physical activity (PA) interventions; yet may change following an intervention. Further, the relationship between preferences and PA behavior change is unclear. This study evaluated exercise program preferences among breast cancer survivors (BCS) before and after a behavioral intervention and associations between program preferences and PA change. Methods BCS were randomized to the BEAT Cancer intervention (n = 110) or written materials (n = 112). Questionnaires assessed exercise program preferences. Minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were accelerometer-measured and self-reported at baseline (M0), post-intervention (M3), and 3-month follow-up (M6). Results At M0, the majority of intervention group participants preferred exercising with others (62%) yet shifted to preferring exercising alone (59%) at M3 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, preferring exercising with others at M0 was associated with greater increases in self-reported MVPA between M0 and M6 (124.2 ± 152 vs. 53.1 ± 113.8, p = 0.014). BCS preferring facility-based exercise decreased after the BEAT Cancer intervention (14% vs. 7%, p = 0.039) and preferring exercising at home/had no preference at M0 had greater improvements in accelerometer-measured MVPA from M0 to M3 (74.3 ± 118.8 vs. -2.3 ± 78.4, p = 0.033) and M0 to M6 (44.9 ± 112.8 vs. 9.3 ± 30.4, p = 0.021). Exercise program preferences regarding mode of counseling, training supervision, and type of exercise changed from M0 to M3 but were not associated with changes in MVPA. Conclusion Findings suggest BCS exercise program preferences may change after an intervention and be associated with changes in MVPA. Understanding the role of PA preferences will better inform the design and success of PA behavior change interventions. ClinicTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00929617.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→