MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554795142 · doi:10.1037/rep0000106

The importance of exercise self-efficacy for clinical outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation.

2016· article· en· W2554795142 on OpenAlex
Anne‐Marie Selzler, Wendy M. Rodgers, Tanya R. Berry, Michael K. Stickland

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

VenueRehabilitation Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPulmonary rehabilitationMedicineAttendancePhysical therapyCoping (psychology)RehabilitationCOPDPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health status in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although these outcomes are often not maintained following PR. Self-efficacy is a precursor to outcomes achievement, yet few studies have examined the importance of self-efficacy to outcome improvement during PR, or how it develops over time. Further, the contribution of exercise-specific self-efficacy to outcomes in PR is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine (a) whether baseline exercise self-efficacy predicts PR attendance and change in functional exercise capacity and health status over PR, and (b) if exercise self-efficacy changes with PR. METHOD: Fifty-eight out of 64 patients with COPD completed PR and assessments of exercise self-efficacy (task, coping, scheduling), the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at the beginning and end of PR. Analyses were conducted to predict attendance, and change in 6MWT and SGRQ, while controlling for baseline demographic and clinical indicators. Change in 6MWT, SGRQ, and self-efficacy with PR was also examined. RESULTS: Clinically significant increases in the 6MWT and SGRQ were achieved with PR. Stronger task self-efficacy predicted better attendance, while stronger coping self-efficacy predicted greater 6MWT improvement. No variables predicted SGRQ change. Scheduling self-efficacy significantly improved with PR, whereas task and coping self-efficacy did not. CONCLUSION: Baseline exercise self-efficacy appears to be a determinant of rehabilitation attendance and functional exercise improvement with PR. Clinicians should evaluate and target exercise self-efficacy to maximize adherence and health outcome improvement with PR. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.391 · 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