Facilitating Exercise Habit Formation among Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of promoting exercise adherence among individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is imperative. However, challenges in maintaining behavior among ACS patients are also well-documented. Emerging findings in the general population have supported the use of habit-formation techniques, which include incorporating routine consistency and cues, to be effective for facilitating exercise behavior. The effectiveness of habit formation approaches, however, has not been tested on participants with ACS. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of facilitating physical activity habits among patients with ACS in a two-arm, parallel design, randomized controlled pilot trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 13) were older adult patients (M age = 64.20, SD = 5.35) with ACS who were referred to a cardiac rehabilitation center. The experimental group attended monthly group meetings from months 1-3 and received phone call follow-ups from months 4-6. CONCLUSIONS: = 0.61. The experimental condition also showed greater use of routine consistency (experimental: M = 4.60 (SD = 0.548); control: M = 3.76 (SD = 1.62)) and cue usage (experimental: M = 3.60 (SD = 0.471); control: M= 2.60 (SD = 0.398)) over the control condition at the six-month mark. The study supports the effectiveness of habit-building techniques among patients with ACS, with effect sizes ranging from a medium to large magnitude. Findings from this pilot study support a full clinical trial with larger sample size.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".