Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity among older adults with cancer in a central Canadian province: Results from a survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity is important for individuals with cancer. Older adults with cancer (OACA) have been disproportionally vulnerable to both COVID-19 infection and its outcomes. This study investigated how the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions affected physical activity in OACA in one Canadian province. Method: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, with SPSS® Version 27. Answers to free-text questions were grouped, based on thematic categories. Results: One hundred and fifteen OACA participated in this study; more than 46% reported lower levels of physical activity since the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described increases in sedentary behaviour and reduced physical activity overall. They also described barriers to physical activity, and remained open to remotely delivered physical activity interventions. Conclusion: The pandemic disrupted physical activity routines among OACA. Future efforts should include an acceleration of research related to remotely delivered interventions given older adults’ growing acceptance of such technologies. Keywords: aging, cancer, physical activity, COVID-19, geriatric oncology, older adults, nursing
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".