A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Tailored Multicomponent Rehabilitation Program for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors have unique needs, yet few tailored rehabilitation programs exist. CaRE-AYA is an 8-week multidimensional rehabilitation program for AYAs that targets impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions and comprises an individualized exercise prescription and weekly group-based exercise and self-management education. Methods: We conducted a single-arm multi-method pragmatic feasibility study evaluating CaRE-AYA’s feasibility, acceptability, and safety (primary outcomes) and assessed disability, physical functioning, mental health, and social functioning at baseline (T0), immediately post-intervention (T1), and 3 months post-intervention (T2). Results: Twenty-five participants (median age: 32.8, 76% female) were enrolled. Participation (60%), retention (84% at T1, 72% at T2), and program adherence (76% for education classes, 74% for exercise classes) supported feasibility. Qualitative interviews (n = 9) supported strong perceptions of feasibility and acceptability. No serious adverse events (≥grade 3) attributed to CaRE-AYA occurred. Conclusions: The results suggest CaRE-AYA is feasible, acceptable, and safe. A randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the effectiveness.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".