Self‐Regulatory Efficacy Encourages Exercise Persistence Despite Arthritis Flare Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study of exercise adherence during an arthritis flare is recommended by arthritis researchers. Studies to date have been correlational. METHODS: Social cognitions of exercising individuals with arthritis who consider exercise adherence under different levels of challenge of an arthritis flare were examined using an experimental design. Exercising individuals with differential self-regulatory efficacy for managing arthritis flare symptoms (SRE-flare) were randomly assigned to conditions where flare symptoms were perceived as either many or few. Individuals in each condition responded about the strength of their anticipated persistence to continue exercise, and their self-regulatory efficacy to use coping strategies to enable exercise. RESULTS: Higher SRE-flare individuals expressed significantly (a) greater persistence (Cohen's d = 1.17) and (b) more confidence to use their flare coping solutions (Cohen's d = 1.44). CONCLUSION: Main findings were as hypothesised. When exposed to the condition with more limiting flare symptoms (i.e. greater challenge), high SRE participants were the most confident in dealing with flare symptoms and exercising. Identifying lower SRE-flare individuals less likely to persist with exercise during arthritis flares may improve tailored exercise counselling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".