MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7115814984

Resistance Training and Cardiac Rehabilitation

2006· dissertation· en· W7115814984 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialResistance trainingQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialOrientation (vector space)Strength training
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mortality/morbidity and quality of life benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are well established, yet adherence to exercise is generally poor post-discharge. Recent trials have attempted to enhance adherence to aerobic activities during transition from CR to home-based exercise. However, these trials have not addressed resistance training, which is also an integral part of many participants' CR exercise routines. Because accessibility to familiar training equipment (e.g., weight machines) and instruction may be limited for many patients upon completion of CR, poor adherence to this beneficial form of exercise can be resultant. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a brief intervention involving the provision of a motivation-enhancing instructional manual and elastic Thera-Bands® on self-efficacy for, outcome expectancies for, and adherence to, upper body resistance exercise. It was hypothesized that participants receiving the intervention would report higher self-efficacy, outcome expectancies and greater adherence than those in a standard care control condition. The study was a randomized controlled trial involving informed and consenting CR participants recruited from an established outpatient CR programme at a major urban hospital (N = 40; n_males = 32; M_age= 61.20 ± 11.10). Participants in the intervention group (n=20) received an orientation to home-based upper body resistance training, a theory-based instructional manual designed to enhance self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and Thera-Bands®. The standard care control group received an orientation to home-based upper body resistance training and standard care CR follow-up (n=20). Participants completed baseline measures of self-efficacy for performing resistance training and activities of daily living as well as outcome expectancy measures one week prior to discharge from CR. The same measures were completed again one week later (i.e., at the end of the CR program), and at 4-weeks post-discharge. Participants logged their sets of upper-body resistance exercises continuously throughout the 4-week period following completion of the CR program. There were no differences between groups on any of the study variables at baseline. Participants in the intervention condition reported higher self-efficacy and outcome expectations for resistance training than controls at the 4-week follow-up assessment. Adherence to resistance training was significantly greater with the intervention group completing over twice as many (105%) sets over the four weeks than the control group. Maintaining or increasing upper body strength is an important outcome of CR as it relates to the performance of many activities of daily living. However, adherence to resistance exercises may be difficult upon completion of supervised, facility-based CR. This study illustrates that the provision of a motivation-enhancing instructional manual and low cost materials has a positive impact on self-efficacy, outcome expectations and adherence to resistance training, and may help participants make a successful transition to home-based resistance exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→