A review of 10 years of self-regulatory efficacy for exercise in cardiac rehabilitation: Do we need to rehabilitate its quality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervised exercise therapy in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a key factor in reducing the risk of a future event. Self-regulatory efficacy (SRE) is critical in motivating physical activity adherence in CR (Bandura, 1997; Ewart, 1991). Berkhuysen et al (1999) argued that self-efficacy stimulates changes in CR and is itself an important outcome. A 2008 review of CR exercise self-efficacy noted most studies assess task efficacy. Only nine assessed SRE for actions facilitating exercise adherence (e.g. overcoming barriers; scheduling). We conducted a follow-up review between 2008-17, and identified 22 eligible SRE and CR exercise studies. Four coders examined each to identify if they a) represented a link between exercise and SRE, b) whether they addressed 2008 review recommendations, and c) study quality. Despite previous recommendations, our critical evaluation suggests the evidence is of mixed quality. Specifically, only 10/22 studies were of high measurement quality; 15/22 were concept valid; 13/22 stated a timeframe for relating SRE to behaviour; only 9/22 used SRE correspondent with the dependent variable. Only 6 studies tested mediation, yet 3/6 had design problems and only 3 were significant. Only 4 studies examined SRE as a CR outcome. The strength of the relationships between SRE and CR outcomes varied greatly (-.02 < |r| < .85). Numerous 2008 review recommendations were overlooked. This literature remains problematic despite published suggestions for multiple improvements. Advocates for heart disease prevention and rehabilitation promotion need to "rehabilitate" the SRE - exercise research to examine motivated post CR exercise change and adherence.Acknowledgments: Diabetes Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship; MSFHR Postdoctoral Fellowship; 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 | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".