MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330101107 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0b013e3181a333a3

Does Protection Motivation Theory Explain Exercise Intentions and Behavior During Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation?

2009· article· en· W2330101107 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief OBJECTIVE Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs have been shown to be effective in increasing exercise capacity, which is a significant predictor of longevity for patients with heart disease. However, adherence to these programs has been problematic. Therefore, it is important to identify key theoretical correlates of exercise for these patients that can be used to inform the development of behavioral interventions to help tackle the adherence problem. The purpose of this study was to determine whether protection motivation theory (PMT) explained significant variation in exercise intentions and behavior in patients receiving home-based CR. METHODS Patients (N = 76) completed a questionnaire that included PMT constructs at the beginning and midpoint (ie, 3 months) of the program and an exercise scale at 3 and 6 months (ie, at the end of the CR program). RESULTS Path analyses showed that response efficacy was the sole predictor of 3-month (β = .53) and 6-month (β = .32) intentions. However, the indirect effect of baseline response efficacy on 3-month exercise behavior through intention was nonsignificant (β = −.01), whereas it was significant (β = .11) for 3-month response efficacy on 6-month exercise behavior. Self-efficacy significantly predicted 3-month (β = .36) and 6-month (β = .32) exercise behaviors, whereas 3-month intention significantly predicted 6-month exercise behavior (β = .23). CONCLUSIONS Coping appraisal variables (ie, response efficacy and self-efficacy) are potentially useful in explaining exercise behavior during home-based CR. Patients (N = 76) receiving home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) completed a questionnaire pre-, mid-(ie, 3 months), and post-(ie, 6 months) home-based CR. Results showed that self-efficacy significantly predicted 3- and 6-month exercise behaviors, whereas 3-month intention significantly predicted 6-month exercise behavior.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it