Examining Model Similarity for Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Community-Based Exercise Program
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design & Paradigm
2.2. Participants
2.3. Procedures
2.4. Measures
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Self-Efficacy-as-Capability
3.2. Self-Efficacy-as-Motivation
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for Community Organizations and Lessons Learned
4.2. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Public Health Agency of Canada. Stroke in Canada [Education and Awareness]. 27 October 2016. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/stroke-in-canada.html (accessed on 29 March 2018).
- Saunders, D.H.; Greig, C.A.; Young, A.; Mead, G.E. Association of activity limitations and lower-limb explosive extensor power in ambulatory people with stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, N.F.; Gulanick, M.; Costa, F.; Fernando, C.; Fletcher, G.; Franklin, B.A.; Roth, E.J.; Shephard, T. Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: An American Heart Association scientific statement from the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Subcommittee on Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention; the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the Stroke Council. Circulation 2004, 109, 2031–2041. [Google Scholar]
- Wendel-Vos, G.; Schuit, A.; Feskens, E.; Boshuizen, H.; Verschuren, W.; Saris, W.; Kromhout, D. Physical activity and stroke. A meta-analysis of observational data. Leuk. Res. 2004, 33, 787–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Billinger, S.A.; Arena, R.; Bernhardt, J.; Eng, J.J.; Franklin, B.A.; Johnson, C.M.; MacKay-Lyons, M.; Macko, R.F.; Mead, G.E.; Roth, E.J.; et al. Physical Activity and Exercise Recommendations for Stroke Survivors. Stroke 2014, 45, 2532–2553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ginis, K.A.M.; Ma, J.K.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Rimmer, J.H. A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 478–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korpershoek, C.; van der Bijl, J.; Hafsteinsdóttir, T.B. Self-efficacy and its influence on recovery of patients with stroke: A systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011, 67, 1876–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAuley, E. Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. J. Behav. Med. 1993, 16, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashford, S.; Edmunds, J.; French, D.P. What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 265–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michie, S.; Atkins, L.; West, R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions; Silverback Publishing: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- French, D.P.; Olander, E.K.; Chisholm, A.; Mc Sharry, J. Which Behaviour Change Techniques Are Most Effective at Increasing Older Adults’ Self-Efficacy and Physical Activity Behaviour? A Systematic Review. Ann. Behav. Med. 2014, 48, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, F.; Riazi, A. Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2011, 33, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spring, B.; Champion, K.E.; Acabchuk, R.; Hennessy, E.A. Self-regulatory behaviour change techniques in interventions to promote healthy eating, physical activity, or weight loss: A meta-review. Health Psychol. Rev. 2021, 14, 508–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowland, S.A.; Berg, K.E.; Kupzyk, K.A.; Pullen, C.H.; Cohen, M.Z.; Schulz, P.S.; Yates, B.C. Feasibility and Effect of a Peer Modeling Workplace Physical Activity Intervention for Women. Work. Health Saf. 2018, 66, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warner, G.; Packer, T.; Villeneuve, M.; Audulv, A.; Versnel, J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of stroke self-management programs for improving function and participation outcomes: Self-management programs for stroke survivors. Disabil. Rehabil. 2015, 37, 2141–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Best, K.L.; Miller, W.C.; Huston, G.; Routhier, F.; Eng, J.J. Pilot Study of a Peer-Led Wheelchair Training Program to Improve Self-Efficacy Using a Manual Wheelchair: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 97, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, D.M.; Rhodes, R.E. The confounded self-efficacy construct: Conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jarry, F.; Sweet, S.N. The Effect of Model Similarity on Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke. Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Logan, L.R.; Hickman, R.R.; Harris, S.R.; Heriza, C.B. Single-subject research design: Recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2008, 50, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ginis, K.A.M.; Phang, S.H.; Latimer, A.E.; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K.P. Reliability and Validity Tests of the Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire for People with Spinal Cord Injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 677–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sweet, S.N.; Shi, Z.; Rocchi, M.; Ramsay, J.; Pagé, V.; Lamontagne, M.-E.; Gainforth, H.L. A longitudinal examination of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), participation, and social inclusion upon joining a community-based LTPA program for adults with physical disabilities. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 102, 1746–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajares, F.; Urdan, T. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents; Information Age Publishing, Inc.: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Dzewaltowski, D.A. Toward a Model of Exercise Motivation. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1989, 11, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nessen, T.; Demmelmaier, I.; Nordgren, B.; Opava, C.H. The Swedish Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES-S): Reliability and validity in a rheumatoid arthritis population. Disabil. Rehabil. 2015, 37, 2130–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parsonson, B.S.; Baer, D.M. The Graphic Analysis of Data. In Research Methods in Applied Behavior Analysis: Issues and Advances; Poling, A., Fuqua, R.W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 157–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, J.D.; Gast, D.L. Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2013, 24, 445–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haegele, J.A.; Hodge, S.R. The Applied Behavior Analysis Research Paradigm and Single-Subject Designs in Adapted Physical Activity Research. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2015, 32, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kratochwill, T.R.; Hitchcock, J.; Horner, R.H.; Levin, J.R.; Odom, S.L.; Rindskopf, D.M.; Shadish, W.R. Single-Case Designs Technical Documentation. 2010. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510743 (accessed on 15 July 2020).
- Parent, N.; Fortin, F. A randomized, controlled trial of vicarious experience through peer support for male first-time cardiac surgery patients: Impact on anxiety, self-efficacy expectation, and self-reported activity. Heart Lung J. Acute Crit. Care 2000, 29, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stenberg, U.; Haaland-Øverby, M.; Fredriksen, K.; Westermann, K.F.; Kvisvik, T. A scoping review of the literature on benefits and challenges of participating in patient education programs aimed at promoting self-management for people living with chronic illness. Patient Educ. Couns. 2016, 99, 1759–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dixon, G.; Thornton, E.W.; Young, A.C. Perceptions of self-efficacy and rehabilitation among neurologically disabled adults. Clin. Rehabil. 2007, 21, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stevens, M.; Rees, T.; Coffee, P.; Steffens, N.K.; Haslam, S.A.; Polman, R. A Social Identity Approach to Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 1911–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melton, T.N.; Agans, J.P.; Lawhon, B.; Mateer, T.J.; Freeman, S.; Taff, B.D. “Pick your team wisely”: A case study of a long-standing research-practice partnership. Eval. Program Plan. 2022, 95, 102169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagosh, J.; Bush, P.L.; Salsberg, J.; Macaulay, A.C.; Greenhalgh, T.; Wong, G.; Cargo, M.; Green, L.W.; Herbert, C.P.; Pluye, P. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agans, J.P.; Burrow, A.L.; Kim, E.S.; Garbo, C.; Schroeder, M.; Graf, S.; Davis, T. “You’re going to burn some bridges if you come at it the wrong way”: Reflecting on the realities of research-practice partnerships. Community Dev. 2020, 51, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorstyn, D.S.; Mathias, J.L.; Denson, L.A. Psychosocial outcomes of telephone-based counseling for adults with an acquired physical disability: A meta-analysis. Rehabil. Psychol. 2011, 56, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kosma, M.; Cardinal, B.J.; Mccubbin, J.A. A pilot study of a web-based physical activity motivational program for adults with physical disabilities. Disabil. Rehabil. 2005, 27, 1435–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Age | Gender | Mobility | Years Living with Stroke | Baseline Leisure Time Physical Activity (min) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | 69 | Female | Requires cane and personal assistance | 10 | 125 |
P2 | 83 | Male | Requires wheelchair, cane, and personal assistance | 16 | 240 |
P3 | 82 | Male | Requires wheelchair | 8 | 240 |
P4 | 79 | Female | Requires rollator walker | 3 | 180 |
Self-Efficacy-as-Capability | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Conditions | Participant | Variability/Stability | Level | Trend 5 |
Baseline 1 | P1 | Unstable 1 Unstable (72.5 ± 18.13) 2 | +32.5 improving 3 | / |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (65 ± 16.25) 2 | −10 deteriorating 3 | ||
P3 | Unstable 1 Stable (50 ± 12.5) 2 | +10 improving 3 | ||
P4 | Unstable 1 Unstable (65 ± 16.25) 2 | −17.5 deteriorating 3 | ||
Peer Model Condition | P1 | Stable 1 Stable (68.75 ± 17.19) 2 | −2.4 deteriorating 3 −0.25 deteriorating 4 | Flat regression line (B = −0.03) |
P2 | N/A (69.2 ± 17.3) 2 | +2.5 improving 3 −0.85 deteriorating 4 | Flat regression line (B = −0.01) | |
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (72.5 ± 18.13) 2 | +12.5 improving 3 +9.25 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.18) | |
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (68.75 ± 17.19) 2 | +5 improving 3 +3.7 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.14) | |
Non-Peer Model Condition | P1 | Stable 1 Stable (72.5 ± 18.13) 2 | −7.5 deteriorating 3 +8.75 improving 4 | Flat regression line (B = −0.06) |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (73.73 ± 18.44) 2 | +10 improving 3 +2.5 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.14) | |
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (72.5 ± 18.13) 2 | +15 improving 3 +10 improving 4 | Strong Positive regression line (B = 0.36) | |
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (67.5 ± 16.88) 2 | +17.5 improving 3 +8.75 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.24) | |
Baseline 2 | P1 | Not enough data points. | +10 improving 3 | / |
P2 | N/A (67.5 ± 16.88) 2 | +2.5 improving 3 | ||
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (77.5 ± 19.38) 2 | −5 deteriorating 3 | ||
P4 | Unstable 1 Stable (67.5 ± 16.88) 2 | +5 improving 3 |
Self-Efficacy-as-Capability | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Conditions | Participants | Level | Mean Level Change 3 | Overlap |
Baseline 1 /Peer Model | P1 | −11 deteriorating 1 −15.1 deteriorating 2 | −0.24 | 100% POD 0% PND |
P2 | +3.35 improving 1 +2.5 improving 2 | −0.02 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P3 | +14.8 improving 1 +9.6 improving 2 | +2.40 | 17% POD 83% PND | |
P4 | +7.5 improving 1 +2.5 improving 2 | −0.02 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
Peer Model /Non-Peer Model | P1 | −5 deteriorating 1 +7.5 improving 2 | −0.08 | 50% POD 50% PND |
P2 | + 5 improving 1 −5 deteriorating 2 | 1.38 | 17% POD 83% PND | |
P3 | −9.05 deteriorating 1 −12.5 deteriorating 2 | −0.15 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P4 | −7.45 deteriorating 1 −12.5 deteriorating 2 | 0.39 | 60% POD 40% PND | |
Non-Peer Model /Baseline 2 | P1 | −7.5 deteriorating 1 −10 deteriorating 2 | −0.31 | 100% POD 0% PND |
P2 | −7.5 deteriorating 1 −7.5 deteriorating 2 | −1.54 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P3 | +3.75 improving 1 +5 improving 2 | 1.21 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P4 | −1.25 deteriorating 1 −15 deteriorating 2 | 0 | 67% POD 33% PND |
Self-Efficacy-as-Motivation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Conditions | Participant | Variability/Stability | Level | Trend 5 |
Baseline 1 | P1 | Unstable 1 Unstable (68 ±17) 2 | −44 deteriorating 3 | / |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (64 ± 16) 2 | −4 deteriorating 3 | ||
P3 | Unstable 1 Unstable (40 ± 10) 2 | 0 change 3 | ||
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (64 ± 16) 2 | −2 deteriorating 3 | ||
Peer Model Condition | P1 | Stable 1 Stable (51.5 ± 12.88) 2 | +13 improving 3 +11.5 improving 4 | Relatively flat regression line (B = 0.09) |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (57.5 ± 14.38) 2 | +11.5 improving 3 +9.75 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.24) | |
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (62 ± 15.5) 2 | +3 improving 3 +1.5 improving 4 | Flat regression line (B = 0.05) | |
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (66 ± 16.5) 2 | +1.5 improving 3 +1.5 improving 4 | Relatively flat regression line (B = 0.08) | |
Non-Peer Model Condition | P1 | Stable 1 Stable (63 ± 15.75) 2 | −2 deteriorating 3 +3 improving 4 | Flat regression line (B = 0.02) |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (66 ± 16.5) 2 | −2 deteriorating 3 +10 improving 4 | Relatively flat regression line (B = 0.07) | |
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (62 ± 10) 2 | +6 improving 3 +10 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.18) | |
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (68 ± 17) 2 | +16 improving 3 +10 improving 4 | Positive regression line (B = 0.24) | |
Baseline 2 | P1 | Not enough data points. | −10 deteriorating 3 | / |
P2 | Stable 1 Stable (66 ± 16.5) 2 | +2 improving 3 | ||
P3 | Stable 1 Stable (64 ± 16) 2 | +2 improving 3 | ||
P4 | Stable 1 Stable (68 ± 17) 2 | 0 change |
Self-Efficacy-as-Motivation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Conditions | Participants | Level | Mean Level Change 3 | Overlap |
Baseline 1 /Peer Model | P1 | −4 deteriorating 1 +12 improving 2 | −0.37 | 100% POD 0% PND |
P2 | −12 deteriorating 1 −16 deteriorating 2 | −1.60 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P3 | +26 improving 1 +22 improving 2 | 4.22 | 0% POD 100% PND | |
P4 | +1 improving 1 +4 improving 2 | 0.26 | 83% POD 17% PND | |
Peer Model /Non-Peer Model | P1 | +4.5 improving 1 +9 improving 2 | 2.09 | 25% POD 75% PND |
P2 | +3.25 improving 1 +6.5 improving 2 | 1.69 | 50% POD 50% PND | |
P3 | −3.5 deteriorating 1 −7 deteriorating 2 | 0 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P4 | −4.5 deteriorating 1 −9.5 deteriorating 2 | 0.46 | 67% POD 33% PND | |
Non-Peer Model /Baseline 2 | P1 | −0.75 deteriorating 1 +7.5 improving 2 | 0.45 | 50% POD 50% PND |
P2 | −9 deteriorating 1 +4 improving 2 | −0.28 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P3 | −4 deteriorating 1 0 change | 0.44 | 100% POD 0% PND | |
P4 | −4 deteriorating 1 −6 deteriorating 2 | 0.15 | 100% POD 0% PND |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pastore, O.L.; Jarry, F.; Zou, J.; Tomasone, J.R.; Martin, L.J.; Pagé, V.; Sweet, S.N. Examining Model Similarity for Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Community-Based Exercise Program. Disabilities 2024, 4, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4010013
Pastore OL, Jarry F, Zou J, Tomasone JR, Martin LJ, Pagé V, Sweet SN. Examining Model Similarity for Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Community-Based Exercise Program. Disabilities. 2024; 4(1):198-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4010013
Chicago/Turabian StylePastore, Olivia L., François Jarry, Jammy Zou, Jennifer R. Tomasone, Luc J. Martin, Véronique Pagé, and Shane N. Sweet. 2024. "Examining Model Similarity for Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Community-Based Exercise Program" Disabilities 4, no. 1: 198-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4010013