Exercise Preferences, Barriers, and Facilitators of Individuals With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy Before Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise can help mitigate side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), particularly when initiated before HSCT. However, the exercise-related barriers, facilitators, and preferences of this population remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the patient experience to inform future implementation of a prehabilitation intervention. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS: A 2-phase sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted using (1) cross-sectional survey and (2) focus groups. Survey questions aligned with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Focus group data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach, followed by inductive thematic analysis to generate themes that represented the exercise-related barriers, facilitators, and preferences of participants. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants completed phase 1 (n = 22 with multiple myeloma). Fifty percent of participants (n = 13) were fairly/very confident in their ability to exercise pre-HSCT. Eleven participants completed phase 2. Exercise barriers included knowledge/skill limitations, inadequate healthcare provider support, and the emotional toll of treatment. Facilitators included social support and goals. Exercise preferences were related to 2 themes: (1) program structure (subthemes: prescription and scheduling, mode of delivery) and (2) support (subthemes: support from personnel, tailoring, and education). CONCLUSION: Key exercise-related barriers included knowledge limitations, disease/treatment effects, and inadequate support. Prehabilitation should be tailored, flexible, and include education and a virtual or hybrid delivery model in this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses are well positioned to identify functional limitations and counsel and refer patients to exercise programming and/or physiotherapy services. Including an exercise professional in the pretransplant care team would provide key supportive care assistance for the nursing team.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".