Examining the cross-lagged relationship between different types of self-efficacies and physical activity in cardiac rehabilitation patients: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) is at the core of cardiac rehabilitation. Therefore, it is important to identify factors that contribute to the adoption and maintenance of PA in this setting. Different types of self-efficacy are hypothesized to be important at different phases of the behaviour change process such that task self-efficacy might have more prominence in PA adoption while self-regulatory types (e.g. barrier self-efficacy) more importance for maintenance. In addition, self-efficacy is theorized as an antecedent and an outcome of behaviour. The purpose of this study was to examine, through a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis, the relationship between three different types of self-efficacy (task, barrier and scheduling) and PA over six months. We hoped to shed light on the antecedent-outcome relationship between self-efficacy and PA. Participants (N =129) from two 4-month cardiac rehabilitation programs answered self-efficacy questionnaires and the Godin leisure time exercise questionnaire at four time points (Baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months). Three separate cross-lagged path analyses were conducted for each type of self-efficacy. For task self-efficacy, PA at baseline predicted task self-efficacy at 2-months, beta=.186 [95% confidence intervals(CI): .050, 0.33], and PA at 4-months predicted task self-efficacy at 6-months, beta=.228(95% CI: 0.097, 0.24). Only PA at baseline predicted barrier self-efficacy at 2-months, beta=.204(95% CI: 0.067, 0.35). No other relationships were found. Unfortunately, results from this study do not clarify the phase specific PA – self-efficacy relationship as no types of self-efficacy predicted PA. In addition, partial support for self-efficacy as an outcome of PA was found; however, further investigation is required. Acknowledgments: The project was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".