Describing and exploring physical activity experiences among adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding if (and how) adults with cancer perceived their physical activity (PA) levels have changed (or not) since the COVID-19 pandemic and why this may have occurred is important. Given current gaps in knowledge, the purpose of this study was to explore PA experiences among adults with cancer amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals were eligible if they were currently ≥19 years of age, had been diagnosed with cancer ≥18 years of age, and were living in Canada. 113 adults affected by cancer (Mage = 61.9 ± 12.7 years; 68% female) completed the survey which asked closed- and open-ended questions about PA levels and PA engagement experiences. Most participants (n = 76, 67.3%) were not meeting PA guidelines, and reported engaging in, on average, 89.2 ± 138.2 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous PA. Participants indicated their PA declined (n = 55, 38.7%), did not change (n = 40, 35.4%), or increased (n = 18, 15.9%) since the start of the pandemic. Participants described their changed PA as due to public health restrictions, lowered motivation during the pandemic, or cancer- and treatment-related effects. For those engaging in similar or greater PA, online home-based and outdoor PA were shared as main forms of PA. Findings suggest PA behavior change support and ongoing access to online, home-based and outdoor PA options will be required as pandemic restrictions ease in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".