MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387219352 · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04305-2

Comparing exercise determinants between Black and White older adults with heart failure

2023· article· en· W4387219352 on OpenAlexaff
Navin Kaushal, Donya Nemati, Dylan Mann‐Krzisnik, Adrián Noriega de la Colina

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Heart failureRehabilitationGerontologyRandomized controlled trialHealth belief modelPhysical therapyPublic healthHealth promotionPsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart Failure is a leading cause of mortality among older adults. Engaging in regular exercise at moderate-to-vigorous intensity has been shown to improve survival rates. Theory-informed methodologies have been recommended to promote exercise, but limited application of theoretical framework has been conducted for understanding racial disparities among older adults with heart failure. This study aimed to use the Health Belief Model to compare exercise behavior determinants between Black and White older adults diagnosed with heart failure. METHODS: The HF-ACTION Trial is a multi-site study designed to promote exercise among individuals with heart failure that randomized participants to an experimental (three months of group exercise sessions followed by home-based training) or control arm. The present study used structural equation modeling to test the change in Health Belief Model constructs and exercise behavior across 12 months among older adults. RESULTS: Participants (n = 671) were older adults, 72.28 (SD = 5.41) years old, (Black: n = 230; White, n = 441) diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The model found perceived benefits, self-efficacy, perceived threats, and perceived barriers to predict exercise behavior among Black and White older adults. However, among these constructs, only perceived benefits and self-efficacy were facilitated via intervention for both races. Additionally, the intervention was effective for addressing perceived barriers to exercise only among White participants. Finally, the intervention did not result in a change of perceived threats for both races. CONCLUSIONS: Among health belief model constructs, perceived threats and barriers were not facilitated for both races in the experimental arm, and the intervention did not resolve barriers among Black older adults. Racial differences need to be considered when designing interventions for clinical populations as future studies are warranted to address barriers to exercise among Black older adults with heart failure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207