Correlates of Adherence to Supervised Exercise in Patients Awaiting Surgical Removal of Malignant Lung Lesions: Results of a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the demographic, medical, and social-cognitive correlates of adherence to a presurgical exercise training intervention in patients awaiting surgery for suspected malignant lung lesions. DESIGN: Pilot study, single-group, prospective design with convenience sampling. SETTING: Exercise training was performed at a university research fitness center in western Canada. SAMPLE: 19 patients awaiting surgical resection of suspected malignant lung lesions. METHODS: At baseline, participants completed a questionnaire including the Theory of Planned Behavior variables of perceived behavioral control, attitude, and subjective norm, as well as medical and demographic information. Participants were asked to attend five supervised exercise sessions per week during surgical wait time (X = 8 +/- 2.4 weeks). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Theory of Planned Behavior variables and exercise adherence. FINDINGS: Adherence to the exercise intervention was 73% (range = 0%-100%). Correlates of adherence were perceived behavioral control (r = 0.63; p = 0.004) and subjective norm (r = 0.51; p = 0.014). Participants with greater than 80% adherence reported significantly higher behavioral control than participants with less than 80% adherence (X difference = 1.1; 95% confidence interval = 0.1-2.2; p = 0.035). Men had better adherence than women (X difference = 24.9%; 95% confidence interval = 0.4-49.4; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived behavioral control and subjective norm were the strongest correlates of exercise adherence. Women could be at risk for poor exercise adherence prior to lung surgery. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: This information could be useful for clinicians in their attempts to improve adherence to exercise interventions in patients awaiting surgery for malignant lung lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 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".