Physical Activity Discussions as the First Step Towards Movement in Non-Curative Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to advances in technology, non-curative cancer patients are living longer with the burden of the disease. Physical activity (PA) has value as a supportive service for individuals at any point on the cancer care continuum, including advanced cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to understand how oncology care providers (OCPs), family/friend caregivers, and health system decision makers can include conversations of PA into care for those living with non-curative cancer. METHODS: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model and further refined them using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The data were then analyzed using a directed content analysis, with a codebook generated based on the TDF. RESULTS: Findings highlighted the need for targeted education and effective communication to address knowledge gaps, motivation-enhancing strategies to overcome emotional barriers, and streamlined referral processes to address systemic barriers to PA across the cancer care journey. CONCLUSIONS: There is an ongoing need to support individuals in living well, which involves not only addressing their immediate cancer diagnoses but also promoting overall health. This can be performed through PA, supported by their OCPs. This study further emphasizes the inclusion of PA discussions in cancer care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".