Objectives To identify factors associated with kinesiophobia (fear of movement) after cardiac hospitalisation and to assess the impact of kinesiophobia on cardiac rehabilitation (CR) initiation.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting Academic Medical Centre, Department of Cardiology.Participants We performed a prospective cohort study in cardiac patients recruited at hospital discharge. In total, 149 patients (78.5% male) with a median age of 65 years were included, of which 82 (59%) were referred for CR.Primary and secondary outcome measures We assessed kinesiophobia with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). For this study, the total score was used (range 13–52). We assessed baseline factors (demographics, cardiac disease history, questionnaire data on anxiety, biopsychosocial complexity and self-efficacy) associated with kinesiophobia using linear regression with backward elimination. For linear regression, the standardised beta (β) was reported. Prospectively, the impact of kinesiophobia on probability of CR initiation, in the first 3 months after hospital discharge (subsample referred for CR), was assessed with logistic regression. For logistic regression, the OR was reported.Results Moderate and severe levels of kinesiophobia were found in 22.8%. In the total sample, kinesiophobia was associated with cardiac anxiety (β=0.33, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.48), social complexity (β=0.23, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.39) and higher education (β=−0.18, 95% CI: −0.34 to −0.02). In those referred for CR, kinesiophobia was negatively associated with self-efficacy (β=−0.29, 95% CI: −0.47 to −0.12) and positively with cardiac anxiety (β=0.43, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.62). Kinesiophobia decreased the probability of CR initiation (ORRange13–52 points=0.92, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99).Conclusion In patients hospitalised for cardiovascular disease, kinesiophobia is associated with cardiac anxiety, social complexity, educational level and self-efficacy. Kinesiophobia decreased the likelihood of CR initiation with 8% per point on the TSK.
This text has become a performance of (affirmative) entrepreneurship. This is done by a set of writing (and methodological) techniques: autoethnography, the triptych of mimesis, poiesis, kinesis and a life journey that forms the base of the chapter. As such, this text challenges some well-known shortcomings of entrepreneurship research such as being enacted by a distant observer/writer, decontextualized accounts of entrepreneurship and disregard of creativity and playfulness. The main contribution of the chapter is methodological, in its broadest sense (Steyaert, 2011): I propose autoethnography as “more than method” for engaging with processes of (affirmative) Entrepreneuring that speak to the increased attention for narrativity and playfulness in entrepreneurship (see for example Hjorth, 2017: Hjorth and Steyaert, 2004: Gartner, 2007; Johannisson, 2011). The autoethnographic story offers an engaging and relevant account of the practice of entrepreneurship and provides rich emic insight into the socio-materiality of lived experience. It also highlights the temporality of entrepreneurship – both in terms of chronos (continuous flow of time) and Kairos (taking advantage of the “right moment”) (Johannisson, 2011). And as I continue performing affirmations, I am curious how you are Entrepreneuring your life – tell me. This is a draft chapter/article. The final version is available in Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Behavior, Practice and Process edited by William B. Gartner and Bruce T. Teague, published in 2020, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788114523
