‘Making a connection’: a qualitative study of experiences from a cancer telerehabilitation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Specialised group-based exercise rehabilitation is beneficial for cancer survivors but access to these services is limited. Telerehabilitation provides an opportunity to expand reach, but we do not know about the experiences of those who participate in this way. This study explored participant experiences of an exercise-based telerehabilitation program for people with cancer. METHOD: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was completed. Twenty-two cancer survivors were purposively sampled from the experimental group of a randomised controlled trial evaluating exercise-based cancer telerehabilitation delivered in groups using synchronous videoconferencing. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded independently by two reviewers and analysed inductively by thematic analysis. RESULTS: 'A feeling of connection' was the overarching theme. Participants perceived they connected with the health service, expert health professionals, and peers through participating in the telerehabilitation program. These connections provided a personalised rehabilitation experience and improved perceptions of physical and emotional well-being. Two subthemes suggested connection was facilitated by (1) the acceptability of telerehabilitation and (2) enhanced accountability to exercise. Participants felt disconnected when they were unable to participate in the program due to cancer treatment and side effects (e.g. fatigue), feeling unwell, and co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: We identified that telerehabilitation facilitated connections that enhanced the reach of exercise to cancer survivors. Our findings support using telerehabilitation to deliver specialised group-based exercise programs alongside more traditional models of care to increase participation in exercise among people with cancer.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".