The SETPACE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to investigate the association between patient self-efficacy, impression of exercise education, and physical activity among stroke survivors. We hypothesized that low self-efficacy and/or poor impressions of exercise education after stroke would be associated with reduced exercise participation. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional investigation of patients' poststroke with physical activity as the primary outcome variable. Physical activity was measured with the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities. Self-efficacy was measured with the Self-Efficacy for Exercise questionnaire. Impression of exercise education measured by the Exercise Impression Questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a low but significant correlation between Self-Efficacy for Exercise questionnaire and Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities ( r (66) = 0.272, P = 0.012). There was an insignificant correlation between Exercise Impression Questionnaire and Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities ( r (66) = 0.174, P = 0.078). There was a low but significant correlation between age and Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities ( r (66) = -0.269, P = 0.013). There was no correlation between sex and Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities ( r (66) = 0.051, P = 0.339). Age, sex, Exercise Impression Questionnaire, and Self-Efficacy for Exercise questionnaire predict 17.1% of Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities variance ( R2 = 0.171). CONCLUSION: Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of physical activity participation. There was a lack of association between the impressions of exercise education and physical activity. Addressing patient confidence to complete exercise has the potential to improve exercise participation in patients after stroke.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.009 |
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".