Testing a mediational model: The relationship between support styles, relationship-inferred self-efficacy, self-efficacy, and exercise in cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Including supportive partners as part of cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) is important, as couple-oriented intervention programs are more successful than individually-oriented ones. However, relatively little is known about how partners can best support patients in making the necessary lifestyle changes recommended for optimal recovery. Further, while relationship-inferred self-efficacy (RISE) has been shown to be an important predictor of patients' self-efficacy in CRP, it is unclear as to how types of support from a partner may influence these perceptions. The current study examined the relationship between support styles and exercise in CRP patients, and whether this relationship was mediated by RISE beliefs and self-efficacy. To test this model, patients (N = 49, Mage = 63) and their support partners completed questionnaires containing items assessing these constructs at week 1 and week 9 of a 10-week CRP. To carry out the mediational analyses, PROCESS, an SPSS macro was used. Significant two-step mediation between support style and lifestyle changes was not found; however, analyses suggested that an autonomous support style was associated with an increase in patients' RISE beliefs (p
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 | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".