Is the Theory of Planned Behavior a Useful Framework for Understanding Exercise Adherence During Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework for understanding exercise adherence during phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: A total of 215 patients completed a baseline questionnaire that included the TPB constructs and past exercise. Exercise adherence was measured via program attendance during phase II CR. RESULTS: Hierarchic regression analyses indicated that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) explained 30% of the variance in exercise intention, with attitude, subjective norm, and PBC each making significant unique contributions to intention. Furthermore, exercise intention explained 12% of the variance in exercise adherence. Finally, the behavioral, normative, and control beliefs provided novel information concerning why patients in phase II CR hold certain attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, and exercise intentions. CONCLUSION: Results of the present study provide evidence that the TPB is a useful framework for understanding exercise intentions and adherence during phase II CR.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it