Translating Research in Practice:The Healthy Living After Cancer Partnership Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
49 TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE: THE HEALTHY LIVING AFTER CANCER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT<br/>Elizabeth Eakin1, Sandi Hayes2, Marina Reeves1, Ana Goode1, Janette Vardy3, Fran Boyle4, Marion Haas5, Janet Hiller6, Gita Mishra1, Michael Jefford7, Bogda Koczwara8, Christobel Saunders9, Kathy Chapman10, Lorna O'Brien10, Anna Boltong11, Katherine Lane11, Polly Baldwin12, Greg Sharplin12, Lesley Millar13, Sandy McKiernan13, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried14, Kerry Courneya15, Erin Robson1<br/><br/>1. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia<br/><br/>2. School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia<br/><br/>3. Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>4. Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care & Research, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>5. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>6. School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia<br/><br/>7. Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCullum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic, Australia<br/><br/>8. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia<br/><br/>9. School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia<br/><br/>10. Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia<br/><br/>11. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Vic, Australia<br/><br/>12. Cancer Council South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia<br/><br/>13. Cancer Council WA, Perth, WA, Australia<br/><br/>14. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA<br/><br/>15. Behavioural Medicine Laboratory, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada<br/><br/>Aims: There is considerable evidence for the role of physical activity, healthy diet and weight control in improving outcomes for cancer survivors, and evidence for related lifestyle interventions. However, these are not incorporated as part of routine care. The Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) NHMRC-funded Partnership Project is evaluating the uptake of an evidence-based, six-month telephone-delivered lifestyle program targeting cancer survivors (of any type following treatment with curative intent) by four Cancer Councils (NSW, VIC, SA, WA) in collaboration with an interdisciplinary research team.<br/><br/>Methods: Phase IV dissemination study; single-group, pre-post design; conducted in three phases over five years: 1) infrastructure and capacity building; 2) implementation and evaluation; 3) advocacy for continued funding, pending findings. Primary outcomes relate to program implementation: adoption (i.e., referrals from treatment centres and community services); reach and retention of participants; fidelity of implementation by Cancer Councils; participant and staff satisfaction; fixed and recurrent costs of program delivery. Secondary (patient-reported) outcomes are: physical activity and dietary behaviour change, weight, quality of life, cancer-related side-effects, distress and fear of recurrence.<br/><br/>Results: Phase I activities (protocol adaptation for Cancer Council delivery; database development; staff training; referral pathway and promotional material development) are complete. All Cancer Councils have begun to pilot HLaC program delivery (Phase II) which will continue for three years. To date, a total of 29 patients have enrolled: 79% female; aged 30 to 82; average BMI = 28 kg/m2 (SD = 8.5); with a wide range of cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, lymphoma, kidney, cervical, Ewing's sarcoma, acute lymphoid leukaemia and basal cell carcinoma).<br/><br/>Conclusions: This University-Cancer Council collaboration provides an opportunity for national dissemination of an evidence-based intervention to support healthy living among cancer survivors. Rigorous evaluation of service-level and patient-reported outcomes will provide the practice-based evidence needed to inform subsequent applications for sustained funding.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".