ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2026
Exploring The Fidelity of Resistance Training Interventions in Regional, Rural, And Remote Cancer Care: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resistance-based exercise interventions are an integral part of supportive cancer care, though their high quality and high-fidelity implementation with people with cancer living in non-metropolitan locations is challenging. This systematic scoping review aimed to identify how exercise prescription principles and measures of fidelity are reported in resistance-based exercise interventions delivered to people with cancer living in regional, rural and remote areas. A systematic scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS and SportDiscus) for peer-reviewed studies published in English, that delivered a resistance-based exercise intervention to adult cancer survivors in regional, rural, or remote areas. Data relating to principles of exercise prescription (specificity, overload, progression, initial values, diminished returns, reversibility), FITT (frequency, intensity, time, time) principles, and fidelity (adherence, dose, quality of delivery, client responsiveness, differentiation) were extracted and summarised descriptively. Of 2490 screened studies, 12 were eligible and retained for analysis. Of the six core principles of exercise prescription, specificity was the most reported (83.3%), and diminished returns and reversibility were least reported (8.3%), with only two studies reporting on more than two principles in total. Similarly, no study reported all four FITT principles. Frequency was the most reported (66.7%), followed by intensity and time (50%). Differentiation (aspects of the intervention that distinguished it from other interventions and contributed to the success) was the most reported aspect of fidelity (100%), with dose (i.e., adherence to prescribed plan) not reported in any study. Exercise prescription principles, FITT principles, and measures of fidelity were poorly reported across included studies. Future research needs to prioritise the quality of reporting of resistance-based exercise interventions to support the replication and translation of clinical research into real world practice within regional, rural, and remote communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.