Investigating the relationship between physical activity and self-reported outcomes in adults with rotator cuff related shoulder pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Rotator cuff related shoulder pain is common among older adults.While exercise is often recommended for this condition, the relationship between physical activity levels and selfreported outcomes is unclear.This study investigated whether self-reported outcomes (pain, function, depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, general mental and physical health) relate to physical activity, and whether those who participated in shoulder-specific exercise had better self-reported outcomes than those who performed whole-body exercise.Methods: Forty-six participants with rotator cuff related shoulder pain participated from which 35 had complete datasets.Questionnaires were used to assess physical activity, pain, physical function, general health, and self-efficacy.Physical activity levels were also measured using an accelerometer.Results: Neither pain nor other self-reported outcomes were related to subjective or objective physical activity levels.Participants that completed shoulder-specific exercise had significantly higher exercise self-efficacy than those who completed nonspecific exercise (P = .01;d = 0.91).Conclusion: A significant relationship between pain or self-reported outcomes and physical activity was not identified.Those who self-reported regularly exercising their injured shoulder had higher exercise self-efficacy than those who did not.These findings have clinical implications, suggesting that strategies to boost exercise self-efficacy may be important for older adults with rotator cuff related shoulder pain.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".