The Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Functional Exercise Capacity and Physical Activity in People with COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the strength of the relationships between self-efficacy and (i) functional exercise capacity and (ii) physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and whether self-efficacy assessment type (i.e., COPD symptoms, exercise-task, exercise-barrier, general, falls) and physical activity assessment type (i.e., self-report vs. objective) are moderators. A systematic search of COPD and self-efficacy concepts was conducted using eight databases from inception to 23 January 2019. Studies were included if they provided correlation coefficients of the relationship between self-efficacy and functional exercise capacity or physical activity, were conducted in adults diagnosed with COPD, and were published in English-language journals. A total of 14 correlation coefficients were included in the self-efficacy and functional exercise capacity meta-analysis, and 16 in the self-efficacy and physical activity meta-analysis. Data were screened, reviewed, and extracted independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Stronger self-efficacy was associated with better functional exercise capacity (weighted r = 0.38, 95%CI [0.25, 0.50]), and greater physical activity (weighted r = 0.25, 95%CI [0.17, 0.34]). Exercise-task self-efficacy had the strongest relationship to functional exercise capacity (weighted r = 0.64, 95% CI [0.51, 0.73]). For physical activity, the type of self-efficacy most strongly related was inconclusive. In COPD, self-efficacy has a relationship to functional exercise capacity and physical activity, the strength of which is influenced by the choice of self-efficacy measure. An understanding of these relationships will assist clinicians in selecting the self-efficacy measure most closely related to the outcome of interest.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".