Evaluating Wall-Mounted Prompts to Facilitate Physical Activity-Related Discussion between Individuals with Cancer and Oncology Health Care Providers: A Pre-post Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the use of wall-mounted prompts in facilitating physical activity (PA)-related discussions between individuals with cancer and oncology care providers. Methods: Individuals with cancer were approached to participate in a survey-based pre-post study. Half of participants ( n = 100) completed a survey prior to installation of wall-mounted prompts in clinic while the other half ( n = 100) completed a survey following installation of the prompts. Survey questions included content of PA-related discussion, satisfaction with PA education across treatment, and current PA level. The post-prompt survey also asked questions related to the prompt. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Chi-squared tests were performed to determine significance between timepoints. Results: One hundred participants completed the survey at each timepoint. A significant difference was found pre and post-prompt in the number of PA discussions occurring overall during care ( p = 0.03). Some participants (53%) were satisfied with the PA education received during treatment. There was no significant difference in occurrence of PA discussion ( p = 0.36) pre and post-prompt and no difference in PA behaviour was observed ( p = 0.130). Conclusions: Wall-mounted prompts may be effective in increasing the frequency of PA-related discussions between individuals with cancer and their oncology team across treatment. Additional strategies, such as easy referral to rehabilitation professionals, are also needed to facilitate safe and effective PA behaviour during and after cancer treatments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".