Kathleen M Nokes, Dudu G Sokhela, Penelope M Orton, William Ellery Samuels, J Craig Phillips, Kimberly Adams Tufts, Joseph D Perazzo, Puangtip Chaiphibalsarisdi, Carmen Portillo, Rebecca Schnall, Mary Jane Hamilton, Carol Dawson-Rose, Allison R Webel
{"title":"探索 HIV 感染者的身体功能、功能锻炼能力和锻炼自我效能之间的相互关系。","authors":"Kathleen M Nokes, Dudu G Sokhela, Penelope M Orton, William Ellery Samuels, J Craig Phillips, Kimberly Adams Tufts, Joseph D Perazzo, Puangtip Chaiphibalsarisdi, Carmen Portillo, Rebecca Schnall, Mary Jane Hamilton, Carol Dawson-Rose, Allison R Webel","doi":"10.1177/10547738241231626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine if there were differences between the subjective and objective assessments of physical activity while controlling for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Setting/sample: </strong>A total of 810 participants across eight sites located in three countries.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Subjective instruments were the two subscales of Self-efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale: Making Time for Exercise and Resisting Relapse and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, which measured physical function. The objective measure of functional exercise capacity was the 6-minute Walk Test.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>Both univariate and multivariant analyses were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physical function was significantly associated with Making Time for Exercise (β = 1.76, <i>p</i> = .039) but not with Resisting Relapse (β = 1.16, <i>p</i> = .168). Age (β = -1.88, <i>p</i> = .001), being employed (β = 16.19, <i>p</i> < .001) and race (βs = 13.84-31.98, <i>p</i> < .001), hip-waist ratio (β = -2.18, <i>p</i> < .001), and comorbidities (β = 7.31, <i>p</i> < .001) were significant predictors of physical functioning. The model predicting physical function accounted for a large amount of variance (adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .938). The patterns of results predicting functional exercise capacity were similar. Making Time for Exercise self-efficacy scores significantly predicted functional exercise capacity (β = 0.14, <i>p</i> = .029), and Resisting Relapse scores again did not (β = -0.10, <i>p</i> = .120). Among the covariates, age (β = -0.16, <i>p</i> < .001), gender (β = -0.43, <i>p</i> < .001), education (β = 0.08, <i>p</i> = .026), and hip-waist ratio (β = 0.09, <i>p</i> = .034) were significant. This model did not account for much of the overall variance in the data (adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .081). We found a modest significant relationship between physical function and functional exercise capacity (<i>r</i> = 0.27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Making Time for Exercise Self-efficacy was more significant than Resisting Relapse for both physical function and functional exercise capacity. Interventions to promote achievement of physical activity need to use multiple measurement strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50677,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":"165-175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11144462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Interrelationships Between Physical Function, Functional Exercise Capacity, and Exercise Self-Efficacy in Persons Living with HIV.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen M Nokes, Dudu G Sokhela, Penelope M Orton, William Ellery Samuels, J Craig Phillips, Kimberly Adams Tufts, Joseph D Perazzo, Puangtip Chaiphibalsarisdi, Carmen Portillo, Rebecca Schnall, Mary Jane Hamilton, Carol Dawson-Rose, Allison R Webel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10547738241231626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine if there were differences between the subjective and objective assessments of physical activity while controlling for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Setting/sample: </strong>A total of 810 participants across eight sites located in three countries.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Subjective instruments were the two subscales of Self-efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale: Making Time for Exercise and Resisting Relapse and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, which measured physical function. The objective measure of functional exercise capacity was the 6-minute Walk Test.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>Both univariate and multivariant analyses were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physical function was significantly associated with Making Time for Exercise (β = 1.76, <i>p</i> = .039) but not with Resisting Relapse (β = 1.16, <i>p</i> = .168). Age (β = -1.88, <i>p</i> = .001), being employed (β = 16.19, <i>p</i> < .001) and race (βs = 13.84-31.98, <i>p</i> < .001), hip-waist ratio (β = -2.18, <i>p</i> < .001), and comorbidities (β = 7.31, <i>p</i> < .001) were significant predictors of physical functioning. The model predicting physical function accounted for a large amount of variance (adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .938). The patterns of results predicting functional exercise capacity were similar. Making Time for Exercise self-efficacy scores significantly predicted functional exercise capacity (β = 0.14, <i>p</i> = .029), and Resisting Relapse scores again did not (β = -0.10, <i>p</i> = .120). Among the covariates, age (β = -0.16, <i>p</i> < .001), gender (β = -0.43, <i>p</i> < .001), education (β = 0.08, <i>p</i> = .026), and hip-waist ratio (β = 0.09, <i>p</i> = .034) were significant. This model did not account for much of the overall variance in the data (adjusted <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .081). We found a modest significant relationship between physical function and functional exercise capacity (<i>r</i> = 0.27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Making Time for Exercise Self-efficacy was more significant than Resisting Relapse for both physical function and functional exercise capacity. Interventions to promote achievement of physical activity need to use multiple measurement strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Nursing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"165-175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11144462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10547738241231626\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10547738241231626","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring the Interrelationships Between Physical Function, Functional Exercise Capacity, and Exercise Self-Efficacy in Persons Living with HIV.
Purpose: To determine if there were differences between the subjective and objective assessments of physical activity while controlling for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics.
Setting/sample: A total of 810 participants across eight sites located in three countries.
Measures: Subjective instruments were the two subscales of Self-efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale: Making Time for Exercise and Resisting Relapse and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, which measured physical function. The objective measure of functional exercise capacity was the 6-minute Walk Test.
Analysis: Both univariate and multivariant analyses were used.
Results: Physical function was significantly associated with Making Time for Exercise (β = 1.76, p = .039) but not with Resisting Relapse (β = 1.16, p = .168). Age (β = -1.88, p = .001), being employed (β = 16.19, p < .001) and race (βs = 13.84-31.98, p < .001), hip-waist ratio (β = -2.18, p < .001), and comorbidities (β = 7.31, p < .001) were significant predictors of physical functioning. The model predicting physical function accounted for a large amount of variance (adjusted R2 = .938). The patterns of results predicting functional exercise capacity were similar. Making Time for Exercise self-efficacy scores significantly predicted functional exercise capacity (β = 0.14, p = .029), and Resisting Relapse scores again did not (β = -0.10, p = .120). Among the covariates, age (β = -0.16, p < .001), gender (β = -0.43, p < .001), education (β = 0.08, p = .026), and hip-waist ratio (β = 0.09, p = .034) were significant. This model did not account for much of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R2 = .081). We found a modest significant relationship between physical function and functional exercise capacity (r = 0.27).
Conclusions: Making Time for Exercise Self-efficacy was more significant than Resisting Relapse for both physical function and functional exercise capacity. Interventions to promote achievement of physical activity need to use multiple measurement strategies.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Nursing Research (CNR) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that addresses issues of clinical research that are meaningful to practicing nurses, providing an international forum to encourage discussion among clinical practitioners, enhance clinical practice by pinpointing potential clinical applications of the latest scholarly research, and disseminate research findings of particular interest to practicing nurses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
