Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose.To test the feasibility and acceptability of a remote physical activity (PA) intervention coupled with motivational text messages among women experiencing severe depressive and/or anxiety symptoms during or after breast cancer (BC) treatment.Methods and materials.A three-phase-single-case experimental study design (16-week) was conducted among 18 women diagnosed with BC reporting high levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms.Our intervention included behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and 2 to 3 supervised PA sessions per week, for at least 30 minutes, coupled with 4 to 7 weekly personalized text messages.Feasibility (satisfaction and drop-out rates), acceptability (participation rates, therapeutic alliance, and qualitative data), fidelity (quality of BCTs delivered), and the efficacy on PA level and physical fitness were assessed.Results.Participants expressed high satisfaction and reported an excellent working alliance with their kinesiologist.Notably, there was a very high participation rate (90%) along with a low dropout rate (11%).However, only 3 patients significantly increased their PA post-intervention. Conclusion.This study highlighted the importance to personalize remote PA interventions for women with BC and severe depressive or anxiety symptoms.The combination of a remote PA intervention with daily text messages appears to be very suitable to increase their adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.332 | 0.263 |
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".