Social Support in Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise Maintenance: Associations with Self‐Efficacy and Health‐Related Quality of Life<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether cardiac rehabilitation (CR) maintenance exercise participants who were high and moderate in social support (SS) differed in their types of self‐efficacy and health‐related quality of life, and whether SS was related to self‐efficacy. Measures of SS, self‐efficacy (i.e., walking, scheduling, in‐class efficacy), and health‐related quality of life (HRQL) were administered to 64 CR maintenance exercise participants. A one‐way, between‐groups MANOVA was significant (p < .01), indicating that CR participants higher in SS reported significantly greater self‐efficacy and physical HRQL than did their moderate counterparts. In addition, social support predicted significant variance in task self‐efficacy. The findings suggest that differential perceptions of SS are related to differences in walking, in‐class and scheduling self‐efficacy, and the physical component of HRQL among CR exercise maintainers.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".