MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Exercise Clinic: Process Evaluation And Changes In Physical Function

2023· article· en· W4387061935 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Myers, Eugenia Wu, Rosalie Ho, Daniella Sare, Monita Sundar, Nicholas Pratap, Guy Faulkner, Celestia S. Higano, Kristin L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttendancePhysical therapyAttritionProstate cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment for prostate cancer (PC) has several adverse side effects. Evidence has shown exercise can mitigate some of these; however, many men with PC do not currently meet recommended exercise guidelines. The PC Supportive Care Program Exercise Clinic (PCSC-EC) is a multicenter exercise counseling clinic designed to assist with behavior change and increase exercise levels of men with PC through individual exercise counseling sessions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the process and effect of the PCSC-EC on physical function (PF). METHODS: A single-group program evaluation design used chart reviews of enrolled participants from June 2018 to May 2022. PCSC-EC program includes one education session and five one-on-one counseling sessions at baseline, 1 -, 3 -, 6- and 12- months. Process evaluation components using a priori criteria targets included: 1) attendance (> 60% at each time point (TP)), 2) session timing (> 75% occurred at planned TP), and 3) attrition (<30% at all TP). Attendance was calculated as the percentage of total visits attended out of the total visits booked at each TP. Attrition was calculated as the number lost to follow-up at each TP out of the total number of participants at each TP. PF was assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery chair test and scored 0-4 (worst to optimal). Change in PF from 0- to 3- and 6- months were calculated with paired t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 577 men enrolled in the PCSC-EC. Attendance (>60%) of each clinic visit was: education = 82%, baseline = 92%, 3 months = 90%, 6 months = 89%, and 12 months = 89%. Sessions that were attended on time (>75%) by TP were:1 month = 86%, 3 months = 78%, 6 months = 68%, and 12 months = 74%. Attrition (<30%) of each TP was education = 23%, baseline = 12%, 1 months = 18%, 3 months = 25%, and 6 months = 21%. There was a significant increase in PF levels from baseline to 3 months (mean = -0.203, SD = 1.22, 95% CI: -0.356, -0.051, p = 0.009), and baseline to 6 months (mean = - 0.272, SD = 0.983, 95% CI: -0.419, -0.124, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Attendance and attrition criteria were met, along with session timing at 1 - and 3-months, but not at 6- and 12-month visits. The PCSC-EC demonstrated significant improvements in PF at 3 - and 6 - months. These findings will help inform future adaptations to the PCSC-EC for men with PC in a real-world setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.367
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→