MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415371385 · doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01915-0

Physical activity barriers, facilitators, and preferences in primary and tertiary prevention of breast cancer: a French national observational study

2025· article· en· W4415371385 on OpenAlexaff
Baptiste Fournier, Lidia Delrieu, Jeff K. Vallance, Siobhan M. Phillips, Hwayoung Noh, Manon Gouez, Fanchon Herman, Anne‐Sophie Hamy, Olivia Pérol, Fabien Reyal, Béatrice Fervers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Survivorship · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityObservational studyBreast cancerPublic healthHealth informaticsQuality of Life ResearchAlternative medicineEpidemiologySecondary prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The benefits of physical activity are widely recognized in primary and tertiary breast cancer prevention. Most women do not meet the international physical activity recommendations for breast cancer prevention despite public health policies. The aim of this study is to better understand barriers, facilitators, and preferences for physical activity among adult women in France. METHODS: A web-based observational study was conducted between February and March 2021 through a Seintinelles French collaborative research platform. Women with and without a history of breast cancer were asked to complete an online questionnaire measuring sociodemographic and health characteristics, physical activity behaviors, physical activity barriers and facilitators, and physical activity preferences. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 women participated in this study, including women without breast cancer (n = 1,245), women with localized breast cancer undergoing treatment (n = 530), or post-treatment (n = 396), and women with metastatic breast cancer (n = 135). The mean age was 48.7 years (SD = 13.2) and 63.8% of the population were classified as insufficiently active. Lack of motivation was the most common physical activity barrier in all groups while the main physical activity facilitators were women's desire to improve their abilities and quality of life, to feel better about their bodies and to experience pleasure. Walking remains the preferred physical activity for all women in the study, as they particularly like to be active outdoors, under supervision, on any day of the week, at a moderate intensity, for 30-60 min per session. Some differences of physical activity barriers, facilitators and preferences were observed between women who are still undergoing treatment compared to women who have completed the treatment or without breast cancer history. Women with metastatic breast cancer emphasized their need for physical activity counselling. Overall, physically inactive women reported more barriers to exercise (17 out of 22 items), whereas physically active women reported more facilitators (20 out of 22 items). CONCLUSIONS: Women across the breast cancer spectrum identified similar and unique determinants and preferences for physical activity. These determinants and preferences may contribute to targeted activity guideline development to promote physical activity for women before, during, and after treatment for breast cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Women who had completed treatment for localized breast cancer share both common and specific determinants and preferences for physical activity compared with women without breast cancer, those undergoing treatment, and those with metastatic disease, highlighting the need for tailored physical activity counselling and programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cancer SurvivorshipSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207