What Motivates Patients with COPD to Be Physically Active? A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation can be broadly defined as what moves people to act. Low motivation is a frequently reported factor for the reduced physical activity (PA) levels observed in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study assessed patients’ motives to be physically active, according to three pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) participation groups (Never PR, Previous PR and Current PR) and explored whether these motives were related to the PA levels and clinical characteristics. The motives to be physically active were assessed with the Exercise Motivation Inventory-2 (EMI-2, 14 motivational factors, five dimensions) and PA with accelerometry (PA groups: <5000 steps/day vs. ≥5000 steps/day). The clinical variables included symptoms, impact of the disease, exercise capacity and comorbidities. Ninety-two patients (67.4 ± 8.1 years, 82.6% male, forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) 48.3 ± 18.9% predicted; 30.4% Never PR, 51% Previous PR and 18.5% Current PR) participated. The motivational dimensions related to health/fitness presented the highest scores (3.8 ± 1.1; 3.4 ± 1.3). The motives to be active were not significantly different between PA groups (p > 0.05) but having less symptoms and ≥two comorbidities were associated with higher scores in psychological/health and body-related motives, respectively (p < 0.05). The findings may encourage health professionals to actively explore with patients their motives to be physically active to individualise PA promotion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".