Does barrier efficacy mediate the gender-exercise adherence relationship during phase II cardiac rehabilitation?
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".