Self-efficacy and outcome expectations in cardiac rehabilitation: Associations with women’s physical activity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known regarding the social-cognitive correlates of physical activity (PA) during and after cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in a female sample. The objective of the current study was to identify distinct trajectories for task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome expectations and examine their association with PA. METHOD: A total of 203 women with cardiovascular disease completed a survey that included the self-efficacy, outcome-expectation, and PA measures at the beginning and end of CR, and 6 and 12 months after completing CR. RESULTS: Latent class growth analyses showed that multiple trajectories existed for task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Dual trajectory analyses showed that women in less favorable task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome-expectation trajectories had a greater probability of being in an inactive PA trajectory. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Women in trajectories with higher task and barrier self-efficacy and outcome expectations are more likely to be active, whereas the opposite is true for women with lower efficacy and outcome expectancies. As such, it is critical that health-care practitioners incorporate strategies into their CR programs or professional practice after CR to increase women's confidence in engaging in PA, overcome barriers to engage in PA, and promote positive outcomes related to PA to increase their PA levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".