The Influence of Risk Perception on Health Behaviour in Adults with Cardiovascular Disease: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is recognized as a significant contributing factor to the global burden of chronic illness. Fortunately, CVD is a largely preventable disease; the challenge may lie in identifying accurate perception or understanding of personal CVD risk to increase the likelihood that an individual is engaged in preventative behaviours. The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of how perceptions of risk factors influence preventative health behaviour in adults living with CVD. Using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) as the guiding theoretical framework and constructivist grounded theory methodology, I interviewed nine participants from a Cardiovascular Rehabilitation facility in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to explore their experience following an acute cardiovascular event. I analyzed the data using coding, memo-writing, theoretical sampling, and constant-comparative processes. This analysis led to the co-construction of the theory An Inner Struggle of Finding Self-Acceptance after a Cardiovascular Event. Encompassed within this theory is the core variable and basic social process, an inner struggle, and three interrelated categories each with defining sub-categories and properties. Findings from this study suggest that the key to supporting and empowering individuals to make preventative lifestyle changes is in acknowledging and understanding the unique and contextual experience of each individual to foster a multidimensional approach to health. Keywords: Cardiovascular disease, prevention, perception of risk, health behaviour, constructivist grounded theory, theory of planned behaviour.
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 | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".