Understanding exercise behaviour during home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a theory of planned behaviour perspectiveThis article is an invited paper from 2007 ICRH Leadership in Science: a Forum for Trainees and New Investigators.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs have been shown to produce significant increases in exercise capacity, obtaining patient adherence to these programs has been challenging. It is therefore critical to identify key theoretical determinants of exercise during home-based CR in order to inform the development of behavioural interventions that improve adherence. The present study examined the utility of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) in explaining exercise behaviour during home-based CR. Seventy-six patients who were receiving 6 months of home-based CR completed a TPB questionnaire at the beginning and mid-point of the program and a physical activity scale at the mid-point and end of the program. Path analyses showed that attitude and perceived behavioural control significantly predicted intention for both time intervals (baseline to 3 months, and 3 months to 6 months), whereas subjective norm only predicted intention within the 1st 3 months. Intention significantly predicted implementation intention, which, in turn, significantly predicted exercise for both time intervals. Finally, several underlying accessible beliefs were significantly related to exercise for both time intervals. Therefore, results suggest that the TPB is a potentially useful framework for understanding exercise behaviour during home-based CR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".