Does barrier efficacy mediate the gender-exercise adherence relationship 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
Objective: To determine whether barrier efficacy (i.e., confidence in one's ability to perform an elemental task under challenging conditions) mediated the gender- exercise adherence relationship in Phase II cardiac rehabilitation. Study Design and Participants: A questionnaire concerning 9 exercise barriers was administered to 98 Phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients (50 male and 48 female). Results: Men had significantly higher exercise adherence rates, F(1, 96) 5 7.22, p 5 .01, effect size 5 .53, and barrier efficacy, F(1, 95) 5 17.50, p , .001, effect size 5 .79. Partial correlations demonstrated that barrier efficacy mediated the gender- exercise adherence relationship during Phase II rehabilitation. Specifically, men had significantly higher barrier efficacy overall and efficacy for overcoming (a) fear of having a cardiac event, (b) back pain, (c) medication side effects, (d) lack of time, (e) angina, and (f) the expense to exercise, which in turn was associated with higher exercise adherence during Phase II cardiac rehabilitation compared with women. Conclusion: Interventions should focus on building women's self- efficacy for overcoming specific exercise barriers during Phase II cardiac rehabil- itation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it