The rise of self-efficacy: patient-partner efficacy dynamics in a cardiac rehabilitation context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis, completed in response to rising incidences of heart disease, is part of a larger study of factors predicting successful outcomes following participation in a cardiac rehabilitation program involving both patients and their support partners. Data were collected using self-report surveys, along with 6-minute walk test results collected by hospital staff. In this study, both self-efficacy (i.e. belief in one's self) and relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE; i.e. the perceptions the patient has of their partners belief in them) were examined to determine how they relate to outcomes and whether agreement between the two variables predicts better outcomes overall. Main hypotheses stemming from the previous literature include: (a) higher self-efficacy and RISE will both be related to better outcomes; (b) congruency between self-efficacy and RISE will be associated with better outcomes, particularly when the congruence is found at higher levels of self-efficacy and RISE; and (c) should there be discrepancy between the variables, higher RISE will be associated with better outcomes. The data were analyzed using polynomial regression with response surface analysis with two separate outcome variables of self-reported exercise and 6-minute walk test. Results pertaining to the 6-minute walk test were not statistically significant. With self-reported exercise as the outcome variable, (a) correlational results were insignificant, and thus could not establish a relationship between levels of RISE and self-efficacy and outcomes; (b) a trend was evident wherein increased congruency between levels of self-efficacy and RISE was marginally associated with improved self-reported (p=.09). When there was a discrepancy, contrary to expectations, (c) it was found that outcomes were significantly better when self-efficacy levels surpassed those of RISE(p=.05). This research contributes to the wider literature on efficacy dynamics and congruence in eliefs. Further, it has the potential to inform clinical programs in the future and opens the door to a variety of avenues for further research in various clinical and sport contexts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».