MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Remotely Delivered, Aerobic And Resistance Exercise Training Program For Mental Health In Women Living With And Beyond Breast Cancer

2024· article· en· W4402662596 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Cuda, Catherine M. Sabiston, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Allyson Tabaczynski, Michelle Ha, Linda Trinh

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance trainingAerobic exerciseMental healthBreast cancerTraining (meteorology)Resistance (ecology)MedicineGerontologyPhysical therapyCancerPsychiatryInternal medicineGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Women living with and beyond breast cancer (LWBBC) who received chemotherapy treatment are at a heightened risk for experiencing poor mental health (i.e., anxiety and depression). The purpose of this two-arm, mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to examine the mental health outcomes of an 8-week, supervised, remotely delivered, combined (i.e., aerobic + resistance) exercise training program versus an active control (i.e., balance + flexibility) in women LWBBC who underwent chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: Women LWBBC were recruited between February-July 2023 through community organizations across Canada. The combined exercise group participated in 3x/wk of 30 min unsupervised aerobic exercise; 2x/wk of 30-min supervised, group-based resistance class +1x/wk recorded class; and four guided, group-based, bi-weekly behavioural counselling sessions. The active control group received 2x/wk of 30-min balance and flexibility class +1x/wk recorded class. All quantitative measures (i.e., primary outcomes of anxiety, depression, and secondary outcomes of self-efficacy, and self-esteem) were obtained at pre-and post-intervention (i.e., 8 weeks). Separate analyses of covariance examined changes in primary and secondary outcomes between groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted post-intervention and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Women LWBBC (N = 21; M = 51.6 ± 7.2 years) were randomized to the combined exercise (n = 10) and active control (n = 11) group and had a mean months since treatment of 11.8 ± 12.9. Improvements with a small effect size in depression (MDiff = -0.89, p = 0.49, ηp2 = 0.03), anxiety (MDiff = -0.08, p = 0.96, ηp2 = 0.00), and self-efficacy (MDiff = 1.41, p = 0.65, ηp2 = 0.01) favoured the combined exercise group, but self-esteem (MDiff = 1.25, p = 0.48, ηp2 = 0.03) favoured the active control group with a small effect size. Women LWBBC discussed improved perceived capability, which translated to feelings of empowerment, greater mood, and ability to cope with stress. CONCLUSIONS:Preliminary evidence suggests that a supervised, remotely delivered, combined exercise intervention may be an effective method to improve mental health among women LWBBC. Future RCTs powered to detect significant improvements in mental health are warranted University of Toronto, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education; PI Startup Funds from Dr. Linda Trinh

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→