Self‐Efficacy and Adherence to Exercise During and as a Follow‐Up to Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined self‐efficacy (task, in‐class, and barrier) and physical activity during transition from hospital‐based cardiac rehabilitation. Participants ( N = 50) completed measures of self‐efficacy at the midpoint and end of the program. Cardiac rehabilitation adherence was monitored and physical activity assessed by telephone interview 6 and 12 weeks post‐program. Mid‐program barrier self‐efficacy predicted adherence ( R 2 adj. = .15, p < .05). Barrier self‐efficacy at the end of the program predicted physical activity 6 weeks later ( R 2 = .11, p < .05). Task self‐efficacy at the end of the program predicted home‐based exercise at the 12‐week follow‐up ( R 2 = .10, p < .05). Results have implications for intervention efforts to ease transition from supervised to independent home‐based exercise.
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".