An Examination of Women’s Self-Presentation, Social Physique Anxiety, and Setting Preferences during Injury Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. This study investigated whether women experience self-presentational concerns related to rehabilitation settings and explored preferences for characteristics of the social and physical treatment environment in relation to women’s Social Physique Anxiety (SPA).Methods. Two cross-sectional studies were conducted. In Study 1, female undergraduate students ( n=134 ) completed four questionnaires (Social Physique Anxiety Scale; three bespoke questionnaires assessing self-presentation in rehabilitation and social and physical environment preferences) with respect to hypothetical rehabilitation scenarios. Study 2 recruited injured women who were referred for physiotherapy ( n=62 ) to complete the same questionnaires regarding genuine rehabilitation scenarios.Results. Women with high SPA showed less preference for physique salient clothing than women with low SPA in both hypothetical ( p=0.001 ) and genuine settings ( p=0.01 ). In Study 2, women with high SPA also preferred that others in the clinic were female ( p=0.01 ) and reported significantly greater preference for private treatment spaces ( p=0.05 ).Conclusions. Self-presentational concerns exist in rehabilitation as in exercise settings. Results indicated inverse relationships between women’s SPA and preference for the presence of men, physique-enhancing clothing, and open-concept treatment settings. Future studies to determine the effect of self-presentational concerns on treatment adherence are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".