Single-Case Experimental Design to Assess a Physical Activity Intervention on Daily Self-Efficacy in Women with Breast Cancer and Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During a physical activity (PA) intervention, improving self-efficacy is a major step to help patients with breast cancer (BC) to modify their PA behavior and improve their physical and psychological health. It appears crucial to examine how self-efficacy fluctuate at an individual level and if emotional and physiological states influence it. We conducted a series of N-of-1, with an ABA’ design, to examine the effects of a 12-week PA intervention on daily self-efficacy level among women with BC and severe psychological distress. Phase A and A’ (2 weeks each) represented pre- and post-intervention measures. During the 16 weeks of the study, 16 participants daily reported their self-efficacy, depression, and anxiety levels. Self-efficacy changed over time in a pattern that was specific to each individual. A significant increase of self-efficacy has been found for 10 participants during and/or after the intervention phase. Thus, timing and content of future self-efficacy enhancement intervention should be personalized in future studies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".