Self‐efficacy, imagery use, and adherence during injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous observational studies examining imagery, self-efficacy, and adherence during injury rehabilitation have been cross-sectional and thus have not provided a clear representation of what occurs over the course of the rehabilitation period. The objectives of this research were (1) to examine the temporal patterns of imagery, self-efficacy, and rehabilitation adherence during an 8-week rehabilitation program and (2) to identify the time-order relationships between imagery, self-efficacy, and adherence. The design of the study was prospective and observational. 90 injured people (n=57 males; n=33 females) aged 18-78 years attending an injury rehabilitation clinic participated. The main outcome measures were imagery (cognitive, motivational, and healing), self-efficacy (task and coping), and rehabilitation adherence (duration, quality, and frequency). Results indicated that task efficacy, imagery use, and adherence levels remained stable, while coping efficacy declined over time. During the course of rehabilitation, moderate to strong reciprocal relationships existed between self-efficacy and adherence to rehabilitation. Weak to moderate relationships were found between imagery use and rehabilitation adherence. The results of this study can be used to inform the development of interventions steeped in self-efficacy and imagery aimed at improving rehabilitation adherence and treatment outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".