The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy on Personal Coping Style and Exercise Behavioural Intentions in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to determine the influence of two levels of psycho-social factors on behavioural intentions (BI) to follow the prescribed exercise in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Coping style (CS) and self-efficacy for overcoming barriers (BAR-SE) were assessed. CS is regarded as a stable person characteristic whereas self-efficacy is a manipulable variable related to behaviour. Stable person characteristics, such as CS, are thought to be difficult to change. Finding social-cognitive mediators of their effects is one way to develop targets for intervention that are, theoretically, regarded as more conducive to change. Self-efficacy, one's confidence in one's ability to perform behaviours required to produce an outcome (Bandura, 1986) is a manipulable variable. METHODS: A sample of 357 volunteer CR patients was recruited upon entry into a regional CR program. Each participant responded to a questionnaire assessing coping (CHIP, Endler et al., 1998), and self-efficacy for overcoming exercise barriers (BAR-SE) previously solicited from CR patients (Blanchard et al.). The CHIP assesses four forms of CS: instrumental, palliative, distraction, and emotional preoccupation, with each form believed to reflect declining functionality respectively. That is, instrumental coping is most likely to lead to functional outcomes, and emotional preoccupation least likely. RESULTS: Mediation of CS by BAR-SE was assessed according to the recommendations of Baron & Kenney (1986). BAR-SE predicted BI (β = .341, P < .001). Two of the four CS types predicted BI (instrumental, β = .223 P < .001; emotional β= −.121, P < .05). Two CS types predicted BAR-SE (instrumental, β = .211, P < .001; emotional β= −.255, P < .001). Finally, BAR-SE (β = .331, P < .001) mediated the influence of emotional CS (β= −.03) on BI, but instrumental CS remained significant (β = .152, P < .01). These results show the expected positive relationship of instrumental CS to BI and BAR-SE, and negative relationship of emotional preoccupation to BI and BAR-SE. They also show full mediation of the undesirable CS by BAR-SE. CONCLUSION: These results show that a social-cognitive variable effectively mediates the negative influence of a person-level variable: emotional preoccupation CS, on BI to follow the exercise prescription demanded in CR. BAR-SE, however, did not influence the relationship between a positive person-level variable: instrumental CS, and BI. These results are promising because they offer evidence of a possible positive synergy of these two levels of variables in producing positive BI. They also offer a viable target to offset the negative influence of a less functional personal characteristic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".