Adults diagnosed with gynecologic cancer and their relationship with their body: A study on the supportive role of yoga using interpretative phenomenological analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and perceptions of adults diagnosed with gynecologic cancer on their body, and the role of yoga in shaping these aspects. A phenomenological research design was used. Fifteen women (Mage=50.1 ± 13.5 years, range=28-66) who practice yoga at least once/week completed a sociodemographic survey online, two semi-structured interviews, and a 30-day journal online. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Participants' responses and the authors' interpretations were summarized into four main superordinate themes: (1) internal monologue of the changed body, (2) balancing act between acceptance and improvement, (3) value of taking time to prioritize oneself by practicing yoga, and (4) transformative catalysts of expectation and mindset on body-related self-perceptions after yoga. Body functionality and appearance, and their sexual health were often deeply interconnected, and impacted participants' self-perceptions and behaviours. Yoga was a vehicle for growth and acceptance; however, participants' expectations and mindsets before and during yoga could lead to negative self-perceptions after yoga. The findings underscore the importance of integrating yoga - a holistic practice - into survivorship care programs, while emphasizing the need to address expectations and attitudes that could hinder positive outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".