MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318484066 · doi:10.2196/39275

Satisfaction of a Virtually Delivered Supervised Exercise Program Specific to Breast Cancer Survivors on Endocrine Therapy

2023· article· en· W4318484066 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rafael A. Fujita, Sam Myers, Kelly Mackenzie, Nathalie LeVasseur, Guy Faulkner, Kristin L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYSession (web analytics)MedicineBreast cancerPhysical therapyCancerComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Only 11% of breast cancer survivors currently meet the exercise oncology guidelines, and the restrictions to gyms and time outside of home related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have aggravated this situation. To address this, we are testing the efficacy of a twice-weekly, 8-week, supervised, synchronous exercise program delivered virtually for participants diagnosed with breast cancer, called the BE-FIT program. Objective The aim of this paper is to examine the preliminary participant's satisfaction in participating in the BE-FIT program. Methods Participants are asked to complete a “Participant Satisfaction Questionnaire” using a range of 1-5 for each question (1 represents “very difficult,” 2 “difficult,” 3 “neutral,” 4 “easy,” and 5 “very easy”). The questions were related to the following: level of difficulty to access classes; level of clarity of information received during classes; level of capacity to continue practicing exercises independently after finishing the exercise program; and level of how likely one would recommend the program to a friend. Results For the ongoing efficacy trial, we collected responses from 40 participants. The participants reported that it was “very easy” and “easy” to access and participate in the virtual exercise session (63% and 37%, respectively). When asked if the information received from the exercise training was clear and easy to understand during virtual exercise sessions, 93% reported “very easy,” and the remainder reported “easy.” Regarding continuing the exercise independently with the content learned in the program, 87% of the participants reported “very easy” or “easy” (31% and 56%, respectively), and 13% reported “neutral.” Lastly, 80% of participants reported “very easy” to recommend the BE-FIT program to a friend, 18% reported “easy,” and 2% reported “neutral.” Conclusions A virtually delivered supervised program seems to be an excellent alternative to in-person supervised exercise programs to provide easy access and clear information during the classes with potential influence on the future practice of exercises. Conflicts of Interest None declared. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04824339; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04824339

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207