Peer Support Physical Activity Interventions Partnering Unknown Survivors of Cancer: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social support is known to facilitate exercise among individuals with cancer; however, this support usually comes from a known source. The use of peer support, from an unknown peer, may facilitate exercise in survivors; however, this has not been well explored in the literature. Purpose: To examine the literature regarding the use, parameters, matching characteristics, and effectiveness of peer support physical activity interventions partnering unknown peers for individuals living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Methods: Six databases were searched for relevant reports up to December 17, 2021. Title/abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were completed in duplicate. Data were extracted for information on population, intervention and partner matching characteristics, and study outcomes. A qualitative synthesis was used to summarize findings and descriptive statistics were used to summarize applicable results. Results: Twelve reports were included in this review, describing 6 unique partner-based peer support physical activity interventions. Most interventions (83%) incorporated peers using a mentor/mentee relationship, where one peer acted as a topic “expert,” assisting the other peer around physical activity. All peers were “unknown” prior to the intervention and all interventions described physical activity level as a primary outcome. All articles including results demonstrated that peer support interventions led to significantly higher levels of physical activity post-treatment. Discussion: Promoting social support via unknown peers has potential to improve physical activity behavior in individuals living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Further research should examine the most appropriate mode of partner communication and the overall effectiveness of these interventions using social support as a primary outcome.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 it