Exercise and behaviour change support for individuals living with and beyond cancer: Interim results and program satisfaction of the EXCEL study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examine the impact of the EXercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well's (EXCEL) 10–12-week exercise and behaviour change support intervention on secondary effectiveness outcomes, including patient-reported outcomes, physical function, and program satisfaction. Individuals with cancer up to 3 years post treatment with any tumour type were eligible. Outcomes were measured at baseline and immediately following the 10–12-week intervention. Patient-reported outcomes included participant characteristics, overall well-being, cognition, fatigue, symptom severity, exercise barrier self-efficacy, and program satisfaction. Physical function included shoulder flexion, 30-s sit to stand, sit and reach, 2-min step test or 6-min walk test (in-person only), and single leg balance. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to assess changes in patient-reported outcomes and physical function assessments from baseline to 12-weeks. A total of 804 participants enrolled in the study in the first 2.5-years, with 699 completing the intervention. Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Rosenthal coefficients ( r ) showed significant ( p < 0.05) small improvements in well-being ( r = 0.10), fatigue ( r = 0.25), symptom severity ( r = 0.17), and self-efficacy ( r = 0.11). Significant ( p < 0.01) moderate to large improvements were observed for the 30-s sit to stand (r = 0.54), sit and reach (left: r = 0.46; right: r = 0.41), 2-min step test ( r = 0.66), 6-min walk test ( r = 0.52), and single leg balance (left: r = 0.32; right: r = 0.34) assessments. Participants reported high satisfaction with program staff (average = 4.5/5) and that the program was beneficial and enjoyable (average = 4.6/5). EXCEL's group-based exercise program with behaviour change support, delivered in an online supervised setting to individuals living with cancer, may improve patient-reported outcomes and physical function and is associated with high participant satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".