Motivational counselling for physical activity in patients with coronary artery disease not participating in cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) fail to attend cardiac rehabilitation following acute coronary events because they lack motivation to exercise. Theory-based approaches to promote physical activity among non-participants in cardiac rehabilitation are required. DESIGN: A randomized trial comparing physical activity levels at baseline, 6, and 12 months between a motivational counselling (MC) intervention group and a usual care (UC) control group. METHOD: One hundred and forty-one participants hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes not planning to attend cardiac rehabilitation were recruited at a single centre and randomized to either MC (n = 69) or UC (n = 72). The MC intervention, designed from an ecological perspective, included one face-to-face contact and eight telephone contacts with a trained physiotherapist over a 52-week period. The UC group received written information about starting a walking programme and brief physical activity advice from their attending cardiologist. Physical activity was measured by: 7-day physical activity recall interview; self-report questionnaire; and pedometer at baseline, 6, and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Latent growth curve analyses, which combined all three outcome measures into a single latent construct, showed that physical activity increased more over time in the MC versus the UC group (µ(add) = 0.69, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with CAD not participating in cardiac rehabilitation receiving a theory-based motivational counselling intervention were more physically active at follow-up than those receiving usual care. This intervention may extend the reach of cardiac rehabilitation by increasing physical activity in those disinclined to participate in structured programmes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".