Family Stress and Physical Rehabilitation Adherence in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Health Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between family stress and physical rehabilitation adherence among adolescents, with health beliefs considered as a mediating variable. Methods and Materials: This descriptive correlational study included 399 adolescents aged 12–18 years who were undergoing physical rehabilitation programs in Minnesota. The sample size was determined using the Krejcie and Morgan table to ensure sufficient statistical power. Data were collected using standardized and validated instruments: the Medical Outcomes Study General Adherence Scale for adherence, the Health Belief Model Scale for health beliefs, and the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes for family stress. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27 and AMOS version 21. Descriptive statistics were computed, Pearson’s correlations were used to examine bivariate associations, and a structural equation model (SEM) was applied to test the hypothesized mediating role of health beliefs. Findings: Results indicated that family stress was significantly and negatively associated with physical rehabilitation adherence (r = –.39, p < .001) and health beliefs (r = –.29, p < .001). Health beliefs were positively correlated with adherence (r = .47, p < .001). Family stress had a significant negative direct effect on adherence (β = –0.26, p < .001) and an indirect effect through health beliefs (β = –0.12, p = .002), with a total effect of β = –0.38 (p < .001), confirming partial mediation. Conclusion: Strengthening adolescents’ health beliefs may serve as a buffer against the adverse effects of family stress and improve rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".