학술논문

Exploring the Interrelationships Between Physical Function, Functional Exercise Capacity, and Exercise Self-Efficacy in Persons Living with HIV.
Document Type
Article
Source
Clinical Nursing Research. Mar2024, Vol. 33 Issue 2/3, p165-175. 11p.
Subject
*HIV-positive persons
*RELATIVE medical risk
*EXERCISE tolerance
*SAMPLE size (Statistics)
*FUNCTIONAL status
*ANTHROPOMETRY
*CROSS-sectional method
*RESEARCH methodology
*EFFECT sizes (Statistics)
*HEALTH outcome assessment
*CLINICAL medicine research
*PHYSICAL activity
*SELF-efficacy
*CRONBACH'S alpha
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC factors
*EXERCISE therapy
*NURSING interventions
Language
ISSN
1054-7738
Abstract
While physical activity can mitigate the metabolic effects of HIV disease and HIV medications, many HIV-infected persons report low levels of physical activity. 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 R 2 =.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 R 2 =.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]