What keeps them exercising? A qualitative exploration of exercise maintenance post-cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few individuals maintain their exercise levels post-cardiac rehabilitation. The objective of this study was to explore factors related to exercise maintenance post-cardiac rehabilitation. Participants were (a) 15 post-cardiac rehabilitation exercise maintainers and (b) 10 cardiac rehabilitation exercise professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants in each group. The data were analysed abductively (combination of inductive and deductive) using content analysis to generate themes that linked to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and represented participants’ experiences and perceptions. Both the exercise maintainers and the exercise professionals identified seven common domains of the TDF relating to exercise maintenance post-cardiac rehabilitation: social influence, behavioural regulation, belief about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, reinforcements, emotions, and environment contexts and resources. Exercise maintainers also mentioned the domains of goals, optimism, social/professional role and identity, and memory/attention/decision process while the exercise professionals discussed the domain of knowledge about the benefits of exercise. In the inductive analysis, participants reported other themes (e.g. variety; cardiac rehabilitation improvements) not related to the TDF. Findings from this study highlighted similarities between both groups on seven theoretical domains and revealed insights (e.g. optimism and variety) that have rarely been examined with post-cardiac rehabilitation populations. This manuscript provides a greater understanding of the theoretical domains that could be fostered to facilitate long-term exercise participation among individuals completing a cardiac rehabilitation programme.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".