Women's experiences with yoga after a cancer diagnosis: A qualitative meta-synthesis – Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of qualitative research exploring women's experiences with yoga after a cancer diagnosis can provide important insights into their motives, barriers, and preferences for yoga participation, which can be used to enhance engagement. In this meta-study meta-synthesis, 6 electronic databases were systematically searched to identify qualitative studies focused on women diagnosed with cancer who engage in yoga. The search yielded 6878 results after de-duplication; of these, 24 articles were eligible and included. Extracted data pertaining to the results, methods, and theoretical approach(es) were analyzed. This paper synthesizes and integrates results from 16 of the 24 articles focused on women's motives, barriers, and preferences for participating in yoga programs and interventions; it is Part II of a 2-part meta-study meta-synthesis. Motives to participate in yoga included: rehabilitation, physical activity, social support, and novel experience. Barriers centred around time constraints, lack of intentionality, online adaptation difficulties, health condition, and cost. Main approaches to delivering yoga comprised: in-person, in-person with an at-home component, asynchronous online, and synchronous online. Each mode of delivery presented its own benefits and challenges, with suggestions for improvement; participants highlighted the value of supportive and knowledgeable instructors, the ability to connect with others, and the importance of comprehensive classes focused on more than just movement. Participants' challenges also highlighted a need to actively seek solutions to anticipated challenges prior to delivering interventions and programs. Findings provide information that can be used to develop and deliver yoga interventions and programs to women diagnosed with cancer that prioritize their needs and preferences. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42021229253; February 17, 2021.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".