"Too much of a good thing? " reliance on cardiac rehabilitation staff and the proxy dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Regular physical activity (PA) aids recovery after a cardiac incident. Despite cardiac rehabilitation (CR) success, many participants fail to adhere six months after CR. Proxy agency (cf. social-cognitive theory; Bandura, 1997) identifies one potential adherence liability: participants' reliance on CR staff. Strong reliance on staff (proxies) becomes problematic when self-managing (SM) exercise (Bray et al., 2006). Purposes: (1) Examine differences within those reporting high proxy reliance between late-CR and 1 month post-CR for (a) self-regulatory efficacy (SRE)-exercise, (b) persistence, and (c) SM-PA. (2) Compare high and low late-CR Proxy Reliant individuals with respect to their post-CR (a) SRE-exercise and (b) SRE for SM-exercise. (3) Utilize late-CR SRE-exercise to predict (a) persistence and (b) SRE for SM-exercise post-CR. Design and Methods: This prospective study, followed CR initiates (n = 95) from two health region CR sites for 4 months. Baseline and post-CR social cognitive and PA measures were obtained. Results: (1) For the high proxy reliance group, paired one-way contrasts revealed differences for SRE-exercise, SM-PA (Cohen's d's < .42), and persistence (p < .05). (2) MANCOVA revealed main effects of high versus low proxy reliance for post-CR SRE after controlling for late-CR SRE (p < .05). (3) Late-CR SRE predicted: (1) post-CR persistence and (2) post-CR SM-SRE-exercise (R2adjusted, p < .05). Conclusions: Findings support Bandura's proxy dilemma suggestion. Individuals relying on CR-staff were less confident and persistent in self-managing exercise post-CR. CR programs should provide participants with opportunities to develop SM skills to sustain PA post-CR (Brawley et al., 2014).Acknowledgments: Royal University Hospital (RUH) Foundation & Canada Research Chair (CRC) Training Funds
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".