A Dyadic Approach to Cancer Care: Examining the Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Partner-Based Exercise Intervention for Caregivers and Their Care Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being key partners in the supportive care of the cancer patient, family caregivers are often inadequately prepared for or supported to take on this critical role, subsequently putting their own wellbeing at risk and, by extension, that of the patient. Exercise interventions show promise in mitigating caregiver burden and improving health outcomes for both caregivers and patients; however, the interrelationship between family caregiver and care recipient has gone largely unexplored. Thus, we conducted a single-group pilot study to examine the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a 12-week dyadic exercise intervention. Of the 27 caregiver–patient dyads who consented, 21 (77.8%) completed the study, with participants completing an average of 23.1 (96.3%) of the prescribed exercise sessions, suggesting good adherence and study retention. All participants reported higher post-intervention levels of strenuous physical activity (p = 0.017), improved sit-to-stand repetitions (p = 0.004), and social functioning (p = 0.030) compared to baseline. Of note, caregivers reported higher post-intervention scores on the burden in relationship subscale of the Zarit Burden Interview relative to baseline (p = 0.043), suggesting an increase in perceived caregiver burden following the intervention. Overall, dyadic exercise interventions appear feasible and may confer certain physical and psychosocial benefits for both family caregivers and care recipients. However, such programs may also unintentionally exacerbate certain aspects of caregiver burden. Future research should aim to identify factors within dyadic exercise interventions that may contribute to increased caregiver burden, as well as strategies to help mitigate these effects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".