Putting psychology into telerehabilitation: Coping planning as an example for how to integrate behavior change techniques into clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<em>Background:</em> Behavioral interventions based on psychological theory can facilitate continued recovery after discharge from cardiac or orthopedic rehabilitation. For example, health professionals can encourage patients to engage in coping planning to support the maintenance of physical activity. Telephone-based interviews or web-based interventions are two promising delivery modes to provide such after-care services from a distance (telerehabilitation). However, previous evaluations of such behavioral interventions lack a detailed description of the specific content, and its connection to psychosocial antecedents and health outcomes. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to (i) describe the content of user-specified coping plans. Second, we aimed to identify (ii) coping plan characteristics associated with health outcomes post-rehabilitation and (iii) socio-demographic and psychosocial variables associated with coping plan characteristics. <em>Methods: </em>This was a secondary analysis from a larger behavioral intervention study, using remote delivery modes, within orthopedic and cardiac rehabilitation. Two raters evaluated the content, quality and number of coping plans from 231 participants. Physical activity and quality of life (health outcomes) were measured via self-reports at the end of rehabilitation and six months after discharge. We used linear regression analyses to examine the relationship between plan characteristics and health outcomes. <em>Results: </em>Content analyses of participants’ coping plans emphasized that physical barriers such as pain or other health limitations presented major obstacles for engagement in physical activity post-rehabilitation. The most frequently identified external barriers to physical activity were workload, family obligations or bad weather. There was a statistically significant difference in quality of life and physical activity for participants who formulated highly instrumental coping plans (higher quality of life and activity) compared with participants with coping plans of lower quality (lower quality of life and activity). The number of plans (quantity) was not related with outcomes. <em>Conclusion: </em>Generating coping plans can be a useful theory-based approach for inclusion in telerehabilitation to facilitate the maintenance of physical activity and quality of life. It is important to encourage adults and older adults to engage in coping planning and, specifically, to formulate strategies that support tenacious plan pursuit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".