Evaluating the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Community-Based, Co-Created Yoga Program for Women with Gynecologic Cancer: A Series N-of-1 Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current yoga programs for cancer survivors do not meet participants' needs and are rarely implemented in community-based settings, despite reported benefits. The aim of the current study was to implement a co-created 12-week bi-modal Hatha-based yoga program for adults diagnosed with gynecologic cancer in the community and assess the feasibility and acceptability of the program and study methods. METHODS: research design, participants were recruited from The Ottawa Hospital. Participants self-selected a morning or evening program, completed surveys 9 to 11 times and were interviewed post-program. The yoga instructor was interviewed post-program about her experience delivering the program. Quantitative feasibility outcomes were tracked throughout the study. Qualitative acceptability outcomes were explored during post-program semi-structured interviews. Audio and video recordings of the yoga classes and data from the instructor interview were used to assess fidelity outcomes to determine whether the protocol could be adhered to consistently. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals were screened for eligibility and 20 consented (48.7%). Seventeen participants (85.0%) completed the final survey. Participants attended 83.1% (19.9/24) of classes with varied engagement with optional features. The instructor was 61.3% adherent to the prescribed protocol, using recommended behaviors 44.6% of the time. Participants shared barriers and facilitators that influenced the success of the trial methods and program. CONCLUSIONS: The program was well-received and trial methods were moderately successful, but refinements are warranted before a large-scale trial. Community-based yoga programs could be feasible and acceptable for women with gynecologic 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 | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".