Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33166304›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Physical activity for people living with cancer: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of general practitioners in Australia.

Georgina Alderman, Richard Keegan, Stuart Semple, Kellie Toohey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Healthcare professionals' beliefs on promoting physical activity in oncology: a COM-B framework analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Barriers and facilitators to giving prehabilitation advice by clinical nurse specialists and advanced nurse practitioners in oncology patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  7. Diet and exercise advice and referrals for cancer survivors: an integrative review of medical and nursing perspectives.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Georgina AldermanDiscipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Richard KeeganDiscipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Stuart SempleDiscipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Kellie TooheyDiscipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1776-6200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare professionals' (Oncologists, doctors, and nurses) physical activity (PA) recommendations impact patients living with cancer PA levels. General practitioners (GPs) monitor the overall health of patients living with cancer throughout their treatment journey. This is the first study to explore GP's knowledge, attitudes and practices of PA for patients living with cancer.

methodsGPs who see patients living with cancer regularly (n = 111) completed a survey based on The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Participants (GP's) reported knowledge, attitudes, perceived behaviour control and subjective norms of PA within the cancer population. GP recommendation and referral rates of PA were reported. Principal component analysis was conducted to establish a set of survey items aligned to TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norms, perceived control), and multiple regression analyses characterised associations between these predictor variables and (a) recommendation; and (b) referral-of PA to cancer patients.

resultsGPs (n = 111) recommended PA to 41-60% of their patients and referred 1-20% to PA programs. Multiple regression models significantly predicted the percent of patients recommended PA, p < .0005 adj. R2 = 0.40 and referred PA, p < .0005, adj. R2 = 0.21. GP attitudes and perceived behavioural control and GP's own activity levels were significant predictors of whether patients were recommended and referred for PA, p<0.05.

conclusionGPs reported positive attitudes and perceptions towards promoting PA for their patients living with cancer. Despite having a positive correlation between PA recommendations and referral rates, a gap was evident between GP's PA beliefs and their individual referral practices. More GP's willing to promote and refer their patients for PA, would improve the physical and mental health outcomes of the cancer population.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesExerciseFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID33166304
PMCPMC7652282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.