The Impact of a Positive Body Image Program (Body Image Awareness Seminars) on the Positive and Negative Body Image of Individuals Living With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using action research principles to address gaps in existing interventions, and in consultation with members and administrators of Wellspring Canada, the purpose of the current study was to adapt and examine the impact of a novel (concept, content, and inclusivity) positive body image program (Body Image Awareness Seminars; BIAS) on positive and negative body image in individuals living with cancer. METHODS: The project used a single-group pretest-posttest design with a 6-week follow-up. Over the 6-week program, 37 participants engaged in 90-min weekly group sessions consisting of researcher-led psychoeducation, group discussion, and activities grounded in positive body image research. Each seminar had a unique theme designed to promote respect, acceptance, and appreciation for the body. Participants completed the Body Image Scale, Body Appreciation Scale-2, Functionality Appreciation Scale, Measure of Body Apperception, Appearance Evaluation subscale, and Self-Compassion Scale anonymously using Qualtrics at the 3 data collection points. Homework assignments included optional readings and writing exercises based on the positive body image tenet taught that week. RESULTS: Participants reported statistically significant improvements in positive body image (i.e., body appreciation, functionality appreciation), self-compassion, and negative body image (i.e., body image distress and disturbance, investment in body integrity and appearance evaluation), which were sustained at the 6-week follow-up in a subsample of participants (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the adapted BIAS program can lead to improvements in both positive and negative body image in individuals living with diverse types of cancer. Results support the implementation of BIAS in the standard of care for those living with cancer to continue to affect positive change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".