Predicting short and long-term exercise intentions and behaviour in patients with coronary artery disease: A test of protection motivation theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of protection motivation theory (PMT) in the prediction of exercise intentions and behaviour in the year following hospitalisation for coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients with documented CAD (n = 787), recruited at hospital discharge, completed questionnaires measuring PMT's threat (i.e. perceived severity and vulnerability) and coping (i.e. self-efficacy, response efficacy) appraisal constructs at baseline, 2 and 6 months, and exercise behaviour at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-hospitalisation. Structural equation modelling showed that the PMT model of exercise at 6 months had a good fit with the empirical data. Self-efficacy, response efficacy, and perceived severity predicted exercise intentions, which, in turn predicted exercise behaviour. Overall, the PMT variables accounted for a moderate amount of variance in exercise intentions (23%) and behaviour (20%). In contrast, the PMT model was not reliable for predicting exercise behaviour at 12 months post-hospitalisation. The data provided support for PMT applied to short-term, but not long-term, exercise behaviour among patients with CAD. Health education should concentrate on providing positive coping messages to enhance patients' confidence regarding exercise and their belief that exercise provides health benefits, as well as realistic information about disease severity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".