Self-reported compliance to home-based resistance training in cardiac patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify factors influencing long-term compliance to home-based resistance training (RT) in a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. METHODS: Five hundred and eighteen patients (447 males, 71 females) attending a CR programme consisting of aerobic exercise, education and lifestyle counselling were also offered RT exercises, which they performed over a 72-month period. These patients were sent a questionnaire to examine ongoing participation in RT and perceptions around RT. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of the surveys were returned. The mean follow-up time was 38.7+/-25.9 months post-RT prescription (about 2.5 years postgraduation from on-site CR). Among respondents, 50% (50.6% males, 42.9% females) were continuing RT at the time of the survey (compliers), and 50% (49.4% males, 57.1% females) had discontinued RT (dropouts). Compliers perceived greater support for RT participation than dropouts (41.3 and 22.5% perceived strong support, respectively, from family/friends and physicians, P<0.005). Dropouts had a higher percentage of body fat at baseline than compliers (32% of dropouts and 20% of compliers had a body fat >25%, P<0.025). Men participated mainly to 'improve appearance' and women to 'prevent osteoporosis'. Weight reduction was a greater motivator to participate for dropouts than for compliers. The main reason for discontinuing RT was 'lack of motivation'. The most common injuries occurred in one shoulder or the lower back. Only 3% discontinued RT because of injury. CONCLUSION: One-half of patients starting an RT home-based programme were still under training at the time of the survey (mean 38.7 months). A lower percentage of body fat and support from family/friends and physicians seem to increase long-term compliance. There were sex differences in reasons for participation and dropout. Emphasizing achievable benefits that motivate men and women to participate may help to reduce dropout.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".