CaRE@ELLICSR: Effects of a clinically integrated, group‐based, multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although oncology clinical practice guidelines recognize the need and benefits of exercise, the implementation of these services into cancer care delivery remains limited. We developed and evaluated the impact of a clinically integrated 8-week exercise and education program (CaRE@ELLICSR). METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods, prospective cohort study to examine the effects of the program. Each week, participants attended a 1-h exercise class, followed by a 1.5-h education session. Questionnaires, 6-min walk tests (6MWT), and grip strength were completed at baseline (T0), 8 weeks (T1), and 20 weeks (T2). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of participants about their experience with the program. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and February 2020, 277 patients enrolled in the program and 210 consented to participate in the research study. The mean age of participants was 55 years. Participants were mostly female (78%), white/Caucasian (55%) and half had breast cancer (50%). Participants experienced statistical and clinically meaninful improvements from T0 to T1 in disability, 6MWT, grip strength, physical activity, and several cancer-related symptoms. These outcomes were maintained 3 months after program completion (T2). Qualitative interviews supported these findings and three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) empowerment and control, (2) supervision and internal program support, and (3) external program support. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the impact of overcoming common organizational barriers to deliver exercise and rehabilitation as part of routine care. CaRE@ELLICSR demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes and was considered beneficial and important by participants for their recovery and wellbeing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".