CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchCardiac Health and Mental HealthHealth Education and Validation

Measuring a Change in Self-Efficacy Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Open access
Vincent, Emma, Sewell, Louise, Wagg, Katy, Deacon, Sarah, Williams, Johanna, Singh, Sally·2011·Chest
DOI 10.1378/chest.10-2649
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Self-efficacy explores the emotional functioning and coping skills of an individual and is thought to be a strong predictor of health behaviors, which is particularly important for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). However, to our knowledge, there is no measure of self-efficacy developed to explore behavior change in the context of PR.Methods We investigated the reproducibility and sensitivity of Pulmonary Rehabilitation Adapted Index of Self-Efficacy (PRAISE): a tool adapted from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) to measure the dimension of self-efficacy at the time of a course of PR. Twenty-nine clinically stable patients with COPD completed PRAISE on their initial assessment to PR. The tool was then completed 7 days later. An additional 225 patients completed PRAISE prior to, and on completion of a 7-week course of PR. In addition, exercise capacity was measured by the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), with the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea scale, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Reported (CRQ-SR), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) also being collected. This process was repeated postrehabilitation. Data were then analyzed to investigate the possibility that PRAISE could be an indicator of PR response.Results In the reproducibility study, the mean change in score was 0.72 (95% CI, -2.27-0.82), examined with intraclass correlation coefficients, r = 0.99; indicating PRAISE test-retest reproducibility. The mean change of score in the sensitivity study pre- to post-PR was 3.59 (95% CI, 2.24-4.73; P = .015). Change in the ISWT was 83.44 m (95% CI, 54.0-112.8; P < .0001). There were several statistically significant differences between variables, particularly with the mastery and emotion elements of the CRQ-SR at baseline, but this was lost post-PR. This observation was also found with HADS. No significant differences were found between MRC dypsnea scale grades with the change in PRAISE score. PRAISE could not predict a successful outcome of PR.Conclusions The PRAISE tool is a reliable and sensitive measure of self-efficacy for patients with COPD attending PR.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.10-2649

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Pulmonary Rehabilitation Adapted Index of Self-efficacy is fully validated in a pulmonary rehabilitation population.

    “The PRAISE is an adapted version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) [34] developed specifically for use in PR and has been fully validated in a PR population [33].”

    From Can we identify patients with different illness schema following an acute exacerbation of COPD: A cluster analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [33]

    The PRAISE-tool section says the authors adapted the General Self-Efficacy Scale specifically for patients in pulmonary rehabilitation. The Conclusions report that PRAISE was reproducible and sensitive to change in that population, but propose it as a practical instrument rather than establishing that it was *fully validated*. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2]2. Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs . Windsor, England : NFER-Nelson ; 1995 : 35 -37 .
  2. [3]3. Barlow JH , Williams B , Wright C . The Generalized Self- effi cacy Scale in people with arthritis . Arthritis Care Res . 1996 ; 9 ( 3 ): 189 -196 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vincent, E., Sewell, L., Wagg, K., Deacon, S., Williams, J., & Singh, S.
Affiliations
Glenfield Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Vincent, Emma
ORCID
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
140
Issue
6
Pages
1534-1539
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1378/chest.10-2649
OpenAlex
W2156958796
Cited by
83
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
British Lung Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
self-efficacy, pulmonary rehabilitation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, praise, General Self-Efficacy Scale, test-retest reliability, sensitivity, exercise capacity, dyspnea, anxiety and depression, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Aged, Analysis of Variance, Disability Evaluation, Exercise Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Respiratory Function Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Exercise Tolerance, Sickness Impact Profile, Self Efficacy, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review