Confused and afraid in the wilderness: The case of exercise self-efficacy in cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise therapy is a hallmark of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. Berkhuysen et al (1999) argued that self-efficacy encourages beneficial recovery and rehabilitation behaviour in CR. Development of participants' confidence in abilities to self-regulate exercise is critical to motivating persistence during CR and for maintaining exercise behavior change post-CR. Following a 2008 review of self-efficacy in CR, there have been multiple studies of exercise and self-efficacy. We conducted a 2008-17 Review, and identified 22 SRE and CR exercise studies. Examination of their quality using principles outlined by Bandura (2006), and Gosselin and Maddux, (2003) underscores a series of problems that limit what we can conclude about the SRE to CR exercise adherence relationship. Do such problems pervade exercise research? To illustrate, our purpose is to identify and explain these and provide examples of poor and good quality protocols and measures. The larger issue is that the problems our Review revealed is a lack of understanding about (a) what the construct of SRE is and conceptually-valid scales, (b) dependent variables to which it should be related and their link to specific functioning (c-i), the complexity of the behavior, (c - ii) the context in which it occurs, and (d) when SRE should be prospectively assessed. Not surprisingly, low to moderate effects were observed for SRE and CR exercise. We recommend that exercise researchers generally and those focused on rehabilitation specifically, move away from borrowing from other health/exercise contexts to avoid treating SRE as a standardized measure (Maibach & Murphy, 1995).Acknowledgments: SSHRC 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 | 0.028 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".