A single-subject research design evaluating a co-created yoga program for adults with gynecologic cancer: feasibility study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, > 1.3 million adults are diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer each year, affecting their wellbeing and quality of life. This manuscript describes the protocol for a study that sought to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of a community-based co-created yoga program and proposed evaluative methods, and estimate program effects on self-reported outcomes. METHODS: Using a multiple baseline single-subject research design with a follow-up phase (ABA), quantitative and qualitative data were collected from program participants and the instructor. Participants were randomly assigned to varying baseline lengths and completed weekly surveys for 3-5 weeks pre-program. Then, participants engaged in a bi-modal 12-week hatha yoga program consisting of 2 60-min group classes a week, with optional supplemental features (January-April, 2023). Participants completed surveys after classes 1, 12, and 24. All yoga classes were audio- and video-recorded. Post-program, participants completed surveys 1, 4, and 8 weeks after the last class and took part in a semi-structured interview 1 week after to discuss program acceptability, suitability, relevance, and potential benefits. Feasibility outcomes (i.e., recruitment, retention, and program adherence rates, engagement with optional program features) were tracked by the instructor assistant and study team during the study. The yoga instructor was interviewed about their experience delivering the program 2 weeks after the last class. PLANNED ANALYSIS: Feasibility outcomes will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts will be coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Class recordings will be coded using duration and frequency coding. Survey responses for self-reported outcomes will be analyzed visually and using multilevel modeling. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: Data will help determine refinements, if any, required to the program and instructor guidebook, implementation approach, and proposed evaluation methods before scale-up projects and definitive trials are started. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05610982. November 3, 2022.
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 | 0.059 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".