4.3 Article

Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Associations With Women's Physical Activity

Journal

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 59-66

Publisher

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/rep0000024

Keywords

cardiac rehabilitation; women; physical activity; self-efficacy; outcome expectations

Funding

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canada Grant [NA5562]
  2. Canada Research Chairs program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Little is known regarding the social-cognitive correlates of physical activity (PA) during and after cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in a female sample. The objective of the current study was to identify distinct trajectories for task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome expectations and examine their association with PA. Method: A total of 203 women with cardiovascular disease completed a survey that included the self-efficacy, outcome-expectation, and PA measures at the beginning and end of CR, and 6 and 12 months after completing CR. Results: Latent class growth analyses showed that multiple trajectories existed for task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Dual trajectory analyses showed that women in less favorable task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, and outcome-expectation trajectories had a greater probability of being in an inactive PA trajectory. Conclusion/Implications: Women in trajectories with higher task and barrier self-efficacy and outcome expectations are more likely to be active, whereas the opposite is true for women with lower efficacy and outcome expectancies. As such, it is critical that health-care practitioners incorporate strategies into their CR programs or professional practice after CR to increase women's confidence in engaging in PA, overcome barriers to engage in PA, and promote positive outcomes related to PA to increase their PA levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available