A qualitative case study of body image in women with breast cancer participating in an exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the body image perceptions of female breast cancer patients who took part in a physical exercise (PE) program. METHODS: Four discussion groups were held with 40 breast cancer patients participating in an exercise program. Hierarchical content analysis identified three central themes: (a) consequences of cancer, (b) coping, and (c) consequences of exercise. RESULTS: Regarding cancer consequences, narratives linked to the others' perception and body stigma prevailed. Participants used mutual support and empowerment as their main coping strategies. The PE program was perceived as a promoter of physical (functional and aesthetic) and psychological benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The participation of female breast cancer patients in PE programs contributes to greater physical, psychological, and social well-being. The analyzed PE program contributed, in general, to an improvement in body image with special emphasis on body function and in cognitive and affective dimensions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PE programs can be a valuable intervention for breast cancer survivors, enhancing body image, quality of life, and emotional resilience during recovery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".