Patterns of Motivation and Ongoing Exercise Activity in Cardiac Rehabilitation Settings: A 24-Month Exploration from the TEACH Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored exercise and motivational patterns of cardiac rehabilitation patients in the long term. PURPOSE: We explored differential patterns of exercise and motivation in cardiac rehabilitation patients over a 24-month period and examined the relationship between these emerging patterns. METHODS: Participants (n = 251) completed an exercise, barrier self-efficacy, outcome expectations and self-determined motivation questionnaire. Latent class growth modelling was used to classify patients in different exercise and motivational patterns. RESULTS: Three exercise patterns emerged: inactive, non-maintainers and maintainers (16%, 67% and 17% of sample per pattern, respectively). Multiple trajectories were found for barrier self-efficacy, outcome expectations and self-determined motivation (3, 5, and 4, respectively). Patients in high barrier self-efficacy, outcome expectation and self-determined groups had greater probability of being in the maintainer exercise group. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying a patient's exercise and motivational profile could help cardiac rehabilitation programmes tailor their intervention to optimize the potential for continued exercise activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".