Partners’ attachment styles and overprotective support as predictors of patient outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates whether the adult attachment styles of support partners in a cardiac rehabilitation context predict their use of overprotective support strategies, and whether such overprotection in turn predicts lower self-efficacy and poorer program attendance in cardiac rehabilitation patients. RESEARCH METHOD: = 35 years). During the first week of a 10-week cardiac rehabilitation program in a midsized rural hospital, participants completed self-report questionnaires that were used to assess partners' attachment styles and levels of overprotection, as well as patients' health-related self-efficacy. Attendance at each session of the program was then tracked by cardiac rehabilitation staff members. RESULTS: A moderated mediation model using bootstrapping showed that when partners were insecurely attached (high in both attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety), a mediational model held, such that more insecure partner attachment predicted more extensive use of overprotective support strategies, which in turn predicted lower patient self-efficacy for exercise and less-frequent program attendance. IMPLICATIONS: Implications for training support partners in more-effective support strategies are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".