Examining change in self-efficacy for exercise and activities of daily living, and the 6-minute walk test with cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise is fundamental to cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. Self-efficacy (SE) for exercise is an important predictor of exercise initiation and maintenance and SE for activities of daily living (ADL) is a variable related to independent living. The purpose of this research was to compare changes over rehabilitation in SE for exercise and ADL, and the 6-minute walk test in cardiac (CR) and pulmonary (PR) rehabilitation patients. A repeated-measures analysis assessed the change in task, coping, and scheduling SE for exercise and ADL in 84 PR and 147 CR patients, pre and post-rehabilitation. An additional repeated-measures analysis assessed the change in 6-minute walk by disease type. Task, coping, and scheduling SE for ADL increased significantly with rehabilitation and overall CR patients had better scores than PR patients. There was a significant disease type by 6-minute walk test interaction, with the CR patients showing a greater increase in walk distances from pre to post-rehabilitation than PR patients. Stronger correlations between SE and 6-minute walk test were observed in CR patients compared to PR patients, and SE for ADL was more strongly correlated to the 6-minute walk test than SE for exercise. Overall, CR patients seem to have greater confidence than PR patients for performing elemental aspects of tasks, coping with barriers, and scheduling exercise and ADL. Likewise, CR patients tend to improve more with rehabilitation than PR patients on the 6-minute walk test.Acknowledgments: Grey Nuns Cardiac Rehabilitation Staff, and the Caritas Centre for Lung Health Staff
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".