“No one told me”: exploring factors influencing physical activity participation in Black Nova Scotian cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Few studies have examined differences in cancer survivors' physical activity and exercise behaviors by race/ethnicity and none have explored this relationship in a Canadian context. Purpose To explore the underlying factors that influence physical activity and exercise participation in African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) cancer survivors. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight ACB cancer survivors residing in Nova Scotia, Canada. Interviews broadly explored three main topics: (1) Exploring physical activity and exercise knowledge; (2) Barriers and facilitators to physical activity and exercise; and (3) Perceptions of cancer specific exercise trials and programs. Participant interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Results An overall storyline of “No One Told Me” along with four primary themes emerged from the participant interviews. Theme 1, “the journey” describes the lack of knowledge sharing between healthcare providers and cancer survivors. Theme 2, “what's there for me” unravels participants understanding of physical activity and exercise, knowledge of available support, and guidance to maintain and/or improve wellbeing through exercise. Theme 3, “one step at a time” spotlights participants thoughts and perceptions of participating in physical activity and exercise. Theme 4, “See ME,” considers recommendations to increase awareness and participating in physical activity and exercise trials/programs and the importance of providing safe and welcoming spaces for all. Discussion This study offers insight into the barriers confronted by ACB cancer survivors when considering participation in physical activity and exercise. Participants were largely aware of the benefits of being physically active but described a lack of perceived knowledge sharing and welcoming spaces. Further investigation is needed to identify strategies to improve representation of ACB cancer survivors in clinical exercise studies and community, cancer-specific exercise programming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".