Nokes, Kathleen M.Sokhela, Dudu G.Orton, Penelope MargaretSamuels, William ElleryPhillips, J. CraigTufts, Kimberly AdamsPerazzo, Joseph D.Chaiphibalsarisdi, PuangtipPortillo, CarmenSchnall, RebeccaHamilton, Mary JaneDawson-Rose, CarolWebel, Allison R.2024-02-292024-02-292024Nokes, K.M. et al. 2024. Exploring interrelationships between physical function, functional exercise capacity, and exercise self-efficacy in persons living with HIV. Clinical Nursing Research. doi:10.1177/105477382412316261054-77381552-3799 (Online)https://hdl.handle.net/10321/5162While physical activity can mitigate the metabolic effects of HIV disease and HIV medications, many HIV-infected persons report low levels of physical activity. </jats:p><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose:</jats:title><jats:p> To determine if there were differences between the subjective and objective assessments of physical activity while controlling for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Setting/sample:</jats:title><jats:p> A total of 810 participants across eight sites located in three countries. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Measures:</jats:title><jats:p> 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. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Analysis:</jats:title><jats:p> Both univariate and multivariant analyses were used. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p> 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<jats:sup>2</jats: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, 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<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = .081). We found a modest significant relationship between physical function and functional exercise capacity ( r = 0.27). </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions:</jats:title><jats:p> 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. </jats:p></jats:sec>11 pen1110 NursingNursingExerciseNursing interventionsClinical research areasFunctional exercise capacityPhysical functionSyndromesHIV/AIDSDiseases exercise self-efficacyArticle2024-02-2110.1177/10547738241231626