Sex-differences in physical activity levels, knowledge, outcome expectations and task self-efficacy in atrial fibrillation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canadian physical activity (PA) guidelines recommend moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA, ≥150 min/wk) and strength training (≥2 d/wk). The PA levels, knowledge, outcome expectations (e.g. walking will make me feel better) and task self-efficacy (i.e. confidence in doing PA) of females and males with atrial fibrillation (AF), a burgeoning patient population, are unknown. Purpose: To examine sex-differences in MVPA levels, % of AF patients meeting the PA guidelines; and their associations with PA knowledge, outcome expectations and task self-efficacy. Methods: In this observational cohort study AF patients completed questionnaires including the Short-Form International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Responses were compared between sexes with Mann-Whitney-U and chi-square tests. Spearman correlations were used for sex-specific associations. Results: Of 621 patients, 33% were female. No sex-differences were observed in MVPA (median [95% CI], F:60 [0, 142], M:120 [90, 155] min/wk, p=0.132). Many did not meet the MVPA (F:57%, M:54%, p=0.430) or strength training (F:84%, M:75%, p=0.018) targets. Few patients knew the MVPA (F:14%, M:13%, p=0.230) or strength training (F:40%, M:36%, p=0.151) guidelines. Some patients (F:45%, M:35%, p=0.066) felt PA was unsafe if their heart rate became too fast, which was negatively associated with MVPA in males (ρ=-0.155, p=0.006), not females ( p=0.052). More females did not feel confident doing moderate PA (F:33%, M:21%, p=0.011) or strength training (F:45%, M:32%, p=0.036), which were significantly associated with MVPA (F:ρ=0.464, M:ρ=0.426) and strength training (F:ρ=0.507, M:ρ=0.572). Conclusions: Most AF patients did not meet/know the PA guidelines; strategies to increase knowledge translation of the guidelines and patients' PA confidence are needed. Funding: Servier Inc, Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".