Perceiving Cardiac Rehabilitation Staff as Mainly Responsible for Exercise: A Dilemma for Future Self‐Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cardiac rehabilitation ( CR ) exercise therapy facilitates patient recovery and better health following a cardiovascular event. However, post‐ CR adherence to self‐managed ( SM )‐exercise is suboptimal. Part of this problem may be participants’ view of CR staff as mainly responsible for help and program structure. Does post‐ CR exercise adherence for those perceiving high CR staff responsibility suffer as a consequence? Methods Participants in this prospective, observational study were followed over 12 weeks of CR and one month afterward. High perceived staff responsibility individuals were examined for a decline in the strength of adherence‐related social cognitions and exercise. Those high and low in perceived staff responsibility were also compared. Results High perceived staff responsibility individuals reported significant declines in anticipated exercise persistence ( d = .58) and number of different SM ‐exercise options ( d = .44). High versus low responsibility comparisons revealed a significant difference in one‐month post‐ CR SM ‐exercise volume ( d = .67). High perceived staff responsibility individuals exercised half of the amount of low responsibility counterparts at one month post‐ CR . Perceived staff responsibility and CR SRE significantly predicted SM ‐exercise volume, R 2 adj = .10, and persistence, R 2 adj = .18, one month post‐ CR . Conclusion Viewing helpful well‐trained CR staff as mainly responsible for participant behavior may be problematic for post‐ CR exercise maintenance among those more staff dependent.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".