Relationships between proxy reliance and exercise self-management perceptions among novice cardiac rehabilitation participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Regular physical activity (PA) aids recovery after a cardiac incident. Despite cardiac rehabilitation (CR) success, many participants fail to adhere to exercise 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 CR staff (proxies) has been inversely related to self-regualtory efficacy (SRE) for managing home exercise (Bray, Brawley, Millen, 2006). Purposes: (1) Compare novice CR participants high and low in proxy reliance with respect to (a) SRE for exercise, (b) perceived PA difficulty, (c) persistence, and (d) SRE for self-managed (SM) exercise. (2) Examine relationships between reliance and SRE; between SRE and persistence; between SRE for SM-exercise, task difficulty and satisfaction. Design and Methods: As part of the first year of a larger, prospective study, novices (Mage= 65), from two municipal health region CR sites were examined. Participants were examined over 12 weeks. Baseline and post-CR measures were obtained including perceptions about self-selected SM-exercise post-CR. Results: MANCOVA revealed significant main effects of high versus low proxy reliance for post-CR SRE and persistence after controlling for baseline SRE (p < .05). Positive relationships were observed for SM-exercise SRE and satisfaction. Inverse relationships were observed between SM-exercise SRE and difficulty; satisfaction and difficulty. Baseline SRE predicted: (1) post-CR persistence and (2) post-CR SM-exercise bouts. All correlations and regression p's < .05. Conclusions: Findings about the relation between reliance and exercise difficulty agree with Bandura's suggestions. New relationships were observed for individuals' self-selected SM-exercise post-CR.Acknowledgments: SSHRC Canada Research Chair 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".