KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS TO HELP EXERCISE PROFESSIONALS IMPLEMENT EXERCISE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH BONE METASTASES: CO-DESIGN OF A HEALTH INFORMATION FORM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION People with bone metastases have historically been advised to limit exercise due to risk of skeletal adverse events, such as bone fracture. Published recommendations by the International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group (IBMEWG) emphasize regular exercise may benefit people with bone metastases; however, there are barriers to adopting these guidelines into clinical practice. For example, exercise professionals (EPs) report challenges obtaining necessary medical information about bone metastases to develop/design safe exercise programs. To address this, a Health Information Form (HIF) was developed using an experience-based co-design approach with three knowledge user (KU) groups: patient/family partners (PFPs), oncology healthcare providers (HCPs), and EPs. The aim of this study was to gather feedback from an international audience on the usability of the HIF. METHODS An online survey was advertised widely to KU groups using a social media toolkit and targeted email invitations to professional organizations. Questions included demographic information, usability of the HIF, and suggestions for dissemination. Analysis of survey responses was descriptive. RESULTS 69 respondents from North America (71%), Europe (20%), and Australasia (9%) provided feedback on the HIF. Most were EPs (54%) or PFPs (36%), and half (54%) had some awareness of the IBMEWG exercise recommendations. 81% of respondents found the purpose of the HIF easy to understand and 77% rated the content as excellent or very good. The design was rated as excellent or very good by 62% with feedback such as “… covers a lot of areas in a way that is brief and effective”. 14 respondents suggested information that could be added to the HIF (e.g., fracture risk factors, recent surgeries). CONCLUSION Overall, the HIF was well received by an international audience. The feedback provided by respondents will be utilized to enhance both the design and content of the form.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".