Understanding Physical Activity During Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation From Multiple Theoretical Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels during home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) have been problematic. Consequently, the present study examined the utility of the theory of planned behavior, protection motivation theory, and social cognitive theory in explaining physical activity (PA) during a Canadian home-based CR program. METHODS: Patients (N = 280, mean age 62.8 years; 95.4% white, 72.5% male, 78.9% married, 52.3% retired, 48.0% income more than $60000; and 33.8% postmyocardial infarction) completed a questionnaire at program onset and a MVPA assessment at 3-month followup. RESULTS: Path analyses showed that each theory accounted for 28% to 34% of the variance in PA. The theory of planned behavior showed that perceived behavior control was the key predictor of 3-month MVPA (β = .36), whereas protection motivation theory showed that intention (β = .30) was the key predictor. Finally, barrier self-efficacy (β = .21) and the availability of home PA equipment (β = .15) were the key predictors of 3-month MVPA within social cognitive theory. CONCLUSION: All 3 theories appeared to be viable options to inform the development of a MVPA intervention during home-based CR. However, the key constructs to target within each theory varied, suggesting the need to potentially use multiple theories to inform intervention development. Patients (N = 280) participating in home-based cardiac rehabilitation completed a questionnaire at baseline and 3 months later. Results indicated that social cognitive theory, protection motivation theory, and theory of planned behavior accounted for 28% to 34% of the variance in physical activity. These theories are viable options in the development of physical activity interventions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".