The importance of exercise self-efficacy for clinical outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".