The rise of self-efficacy: patient-partner efficacy dynamics in a cardiac rehabilitation context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis, completed in response to rising incidences of heart disease, is part of a larger study of factors predicting successful outcomes following participation in a cardiac rehabilitation program involving both patients and their support partners. Data were collected using self-report surveys, along with 6-minute walk test results collected by hospital staff. In this study, both self-efficacy (i.e. belief in one's self) and relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE; i.e. the perceptions the patient has of their partners belief in them) were examined to determine how they relate to outcomes and whether agreement between the two variables predicts better outcomes overall. Main hypotheses stemming from the previous literature include: (a) higher self-efficacy and RISE will both be related to better outcomes; (b) congruency between self-efficacy and RISE will be associated with better outcomes, particularly when the congruence is found at higher levels of self-efficacy and RISE; and (c) should there be discrepancy between the variables, higher RISE will be associated with better outcomes. The data were analyzed using polynomial regression with response surface analysis with two separate outcome variables of self-reported exercise and 6-minute walk test. Results pertaining to the 6-minute walk test were not statistically significant. With self-reported exercise as the outcome variable, (a) correlational results were insignificant, and thus could not establish a relationship between levels of RISE and self-efficacy and outcomes; (b) a trend was evident wherein increased congruency between levels of self-efficacy and RISE was marginally associated with improved self-reported (p=.09). When there was a discrepancy, contrary to expectations, (c) it was found that outcomes were significantly better when self-efficacy levels surpassed those of RISE(p=.05). This research contributes to the wider literature on efficacy dynamics and congruence in eliefs. Further, it has the potential to inform clinical programs in the future and opens the door to a variety of avenues for further research in various clinical and sport contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".