Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0299288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299288

Exploring differences between gender expressions in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with stroke

Elise Wiley 1, Kevin Moncion 1, Lynden Rodrigues 2,3, Hanna Fang 1, Kenneth S Noguchi 1, Marc Roig 2,3, Julie Richardson 1, Joy C MacDermid 1,4, Ada Tang 1,*
Editor: Henry Hugh Bailey5
PMCID: PMC10936775  PMID: 38478486

Abstract

Gender expression may be associated with exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in the general population. Exercising for challenge and enjoyment are associated with the instrumental traits typically held by individuals with masculine gender expressions. Conversely, exercising for weight loss to receive validation from others are in line with the expressive traits most commonly held by individuals with feminine gender expressions. Moreover, possessing neither dominant nor expressive traits (undifferentiated gender expressions) have been linked to poorer psychological outcomes. Exercise is important after stroke, but gender differences in psychosocial factors for exercise in this population were unknown. The purpose of this study was to explore whether gender expression differences exist in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise post-stroke. Gender expression (masculine, feminine, androgynous, undifferentiated) was assessed using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory-12 (BSRI-12) in 67 individuals with stroke. Self-efficacy and outcomes expectations for exercise were assessed using the Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity Scale and Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale, respectively. One-way analysis of covariance models were conducted, adjusting for biological sex, age, and time post-stroke. There were differences in exercise self-efficacy across the four gender expression groups (F(3,60) = 4.28, p<0.01), where individuals with masculine gender expressions had higher self-efficacy than those with undifferentiated gender expressions (adjusted mean: 3.56 [SE: 0.17] vs. 2.72 [SE:0.18], p<0.01). There were no differences in outcome expectations for exercise (F(3,57) = 1.08, p = 0.36) between gender expressions. In our pairwise comparisons, we found that individuals with masculine gender expressions had higher exercise self-efficacy than individuals possessing undifferentiated gender expressions. Strategies to enhance exercise self-efficacy after stroke are needed, particularly for individuals with undifferentiated gender expression. There were no associations between gender expression and outcome expectations for exercise after stroke. Clinicians may continue reinforcing the positive expectations towards exercise across all gender expressions.

Introduction

Exercise is known to have many benefits for individuals living with stroke, with strong evidence supporting improved cardiovascular fitness, walking function, balance [1], cognitive function [2], and reductions in vascular risk factors, including cholesterol and blood pressure levels [3, 4]. Despite the known benefits and best practice recommendations to engage in regular exercise [5], physical activity levels after stroke are substantially lower than older adults without stroke [6]. Individuals with stroke also report low levels of exercise self-efficacy [710] and lower expectations on the benefits of exercise [1114], which can influence the initiation and adherence of exercise [15]. Moreover, stroke physiotherapists have also acknowledged that exercise training is not typically prioritized within management plans or as part of stroke rehabilitation goals [16, 17], which may indeed further limit opportunities for positive exercise behaviours.

There have been preliminary reports of gender-based considerations being associated with participation in stroke rehabilitation programs, specifically around barriers faced by women. With regards to the construct of gender roles (representing the behavioral norms applied to men and women in society) [18], women with stroke are more likely to possess primary caregiver roles, whereby it is increasingly difficult to focus on their own health when pressures to prioritize the needs of others are present [19]. Moreover, women are less likely to view stroke as a major health concern which limits their motivation to participate in stroke rehabilitation [19]. These gender roles may also influence exercise behaviours.

Gender expression is a construct of gender that has not been studied in individuals with stroke but may be an important factor associated with exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise. Gender expression refers to the traits, thoughts and beliefs an individual possesses regarding their gender self-concept, whereby gender expression is most commonly expressed on a fluid spectrum of masculinity to femininity [20]. Importantly, an individual’s gender expression may differ from their biological sex at birth [18]. Sex is a biological construct, whereby an individual is characterized as being male or female according to genetics, anatomy, and physiology [18], which influence biological processes such as ageing and prevalence, diagnosis, severity, and outcomes of disease [21].

Sandra Bem was the first to propose that individuals with masculine gender expressions were more likely to take on instrumental traits, whereas individuals with feminine gender expressions were more likely to encompass expressive traits [22]. Dr. Bem also proposed two additional cross-sex-typed genders: androgynous (possessing both masculine and feminine traits) and undifferentiated (below-average propensities of both masculinity and femininity) [22].

An individual’s gender expression may have an important influence on their exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise, whereby differences in exercise behaviours between individuals possessing masculine versus feminine gender expressions are reported early in life and persist into adulthood. Specifically, people with masculine gender traits possess higher exercise self-efficacy than those with feminine gender traits, and thus are more likely to participate in exercise [2331]. Men are also more likely to report challenge, enjoyment, and gains in strength and fitness as exercise motives whereas women report exercising for stress reduction or weight management to improve physical appearance [3237]. Similarly, men are also more likely than women to report positive outcome expectations for exercise, including greater enjoyment and improved satisfaction with leisure activities and quality of life from participating in exercise [28, 34, 3840].

Factors associated with exercise behaviours in men, such as exercising for challenge and enjoyment, are associated with masculine gender expressions, dominated by instrumental traits encompassing personal agency and accomplishment [22]. Conversely, the motives for exercise in women, such as exercising for weight loss to receive validation from others, are in line with feminine gender expressions where expressive personality traits involving the maintenance of social relationships and focusing on the needs of others are present [22]. Indeed, previous research has supported that younger adults with feminine gender expressions possessed less favourable perceptions of an ideal body weight than those with masculine gender expressions [41]. Undifferentiated individuals have also been show to possess lower mental health and self-esteem compared to other gender expressions [42], while individuals possessing androgynous gender expressions may be positioned to possess the most favourable psychological wellness and health behaviours due to the optimal balance between instrumental and expressive traits [22, 41].

There is currently a gap in knowledge of whether gender-related associations exist in the context of psychosocial factors for exercise among individuals with stroke.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether gender expression (masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated) differences exist in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise among individuals with stroke. Based on previous literature, we hypothesized that either individuals with masculine or androgynous gender expressions would possess the highest exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise, while individuals with feminine and undifferentiated expressions would demonstrate the least favourable self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise. Findings from this research may provide important insight for clinicians and researchers on the associations between gender-based factors with exercise behaviours among individuals with stroke, and thus can promote opportunities to deliver satisfactory interventions and treatments targeted to the specific traits of individuals with different gender expressions.

Materials and methods

This study was a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from three studies: baseline data from a multi-site randomized controlled exercise trial [43] (Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board [HIREB] 4713, McGill University Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation du Montréal Métropolitain CRIR-1310-0218) (n = 59; recruitment period April 1, 2019 –ongoing), and two prospective single-group studies (HIREB 3113 (n = 2; recruitment period February 26, 2018 –December 31, 2019) and 12734 (n = 6; recruitment period June 24, 2021- October 17, 2022)). All study procedures were followed in accordance to guidelines outlined by the respective institutional research ethics committees. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants. A member of the research team provided detailed explanations of the study logistics and responded to any questions, prior to the participant completing the consent form. The same study team member observed the participant complete the form (a trusted family member or friend was present, if needed). We used the STROBE cross-sectional checklist when writing our report [44].

Participants

The study sample was one of convenience. Eligibility and recruitment strategies were similar for all three studies. Participants were recruited from the community, through local community stroke groups and from a database of former research participants who consented to be contacted for future research studies. Members of the research team attended monthly meetings of community stroke groups and provided a brief presentation of the research study, distributed study flyers, addressed questions, and collected phone numbers of interested individuals. For all recruitment methods, participants were screened for eligibility for the study over the phone with a member of the study team. Individuals were eligible to participate if they were between 40–80 years old, at least 6-months post-stroke, living in the community and able to walk at least 10 meters independently (gait aids permitted). Individuals were excluded if they had a stroke of non-cardiogenic origin or tumor, scored >2 on the Modified Rankin Scale, or, relevant for the exercise studies, had any contraindications to exercise testing [45] or class C or D American Heart Association Risk Criteria. Individuals were also excluded if they presented with other neurological or musculoskeletal comorbidities, pain worsened with exercise, or cognitive, communication, or behavioural issues that could limit their ability to provide consent or follow instructions.

Assessments

Participant characteristics

Participant demographic information, stroke lesion type and location, time post-stroke (years), degree of disability using the Modified Rankin Scale [46] were collected.

Gender expression (independent variable)

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory-12 (BSRI-12), a 12-item questionnaire [47, 48] derived from the original 60-item BSRI questionnaire [22], was used to assess gender expression, as recommended by experts in sex and gender-based considerations [18]. The BSRI-12 consists of two scales with 6 stereotypical feminine gender traits (warm, gentle, affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive to other’s needs, tender) and 6 stereotypical masculine gender traits (has leadership abilities, strong personality, acts as leader, dominant, defends own beliefs, makes decisions easily) [47, 48]. Participants rated the extent to which each trait reflected themselves on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never or almost never true, 7 = always or almost always true) [47, 48].

We used the median-split to classify the BSRI-12 [49, 50]. This commonly used approach in older adult populations [51, 52] was selected as the alternative approach to using normative values which was based on a sample of younger adults [22], and thus not representative of our sample. The median-split method involved first determining the overall median value for both feminine and masculine subscales from the sample, then comparing individual participant scores from the masculine and feminine subscales [47]. Gender expression was classified for each participant as follows: feminine gender expression if the mean score on the feminine scale was higher than the overall median and mean score on the masculine scale was lower, masculine gender if the mean score on the masculine scale was higher than the overall median and mean score on the feminine scale was lower, undifferentiated if mean scores for both the feminine and masculine scales fell below the median, and androgynous if mean scores on both scales were equal to or above the median for feminine and masculine subscales [47]. The BSRI-12 has high internal consistency in older adults (feminine scale Cronbach’s alpha 0.76, masculine scale Cronbach’s alpha 0.75) and discriminant validity between the two separate masculine and feminine scales [53]. We also calculated the internal consistency of each subscale within our study sample.

Psychosocial outcomes for exercise (dependent variables)

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory outlines a core set of psychosocial determinants of health that are required to successfully execute health behaviours [54, 55], such as exercise. Two of these core determinants, self-efficacy and outcome expectations, were the primary dependent variables of interest in our current study.

Self-efficacy for exercise. Exercise self-efficacy is formally defined as a person’s beliefs in their capabilities to successfully engage in bouts of exercise [56, 57]. Regular engagement in exercise among older adults promotes greater mastery experiences which can translate into psychosocial benefits such as reduced stress and depression [58]. There is a strong positive association between higher exercise self-efficacy and greater levels of physical activity engagement in older adults [5961] and individuals with stroke [62].

With the 5-item Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity Scale (SEPA) [63], participants were asked to rate their levels of confidence in their abilities to exercise using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not confident at all) to 5 (extremely confident). Scores obtained on each of item of the questionnaire were summed to calculate a mean score [63]. The SEPA has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.76–0.85) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.90) in adults [63], and predictive validity for participation in physical activity guidelines in adults [64].

Outcome expectations for exercise. Outcome expectations for exercise reflects the belief that engaging in exercise behaviours will produce a specific outcome [65], whereby a positive association exists between higher outcome expectations and greater physical activity levels in older adults [61] and individuals with stroke [62].

The Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale (SOEE) [66, 67] is a 5-item questionnaire that is used to evaluate the outcome expectations related to exercise that are relevant to older adults. Participants were asked to rate their expectation of positive outcomes for exercise on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and scores obtained on each of item of the questionnaire were summed to calculate a mean score [67]. In individuals with stroke, the SOEE demonstrated both high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.90) and construct validity with common outcome expectations related to exercise, which include exercising to improve mood, alertness, endurance and believing that exercise is enjoyable (λ = 0.67–0.88) [67].

Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds’ omega were computed to determine internal consistency of the SOEE and SSEE in our sample. To minimize the risk of bias, a member of the study team was present and assisted each participant by reading out the instructors and question/items within each questionnaire.

Statistical analyses

Participant demographics were described using descriptive statistics for mean and standard deviations for normally distributed continuous variables, frequency (percentages) for categorical variables, and median and interquartile range for non-normally distributed data. Data were inspected for normality through histograms and the Shapiro-Wilk test. Assumptions for homogeneity of the variances were tested using the Bartlett’s and Cooks-Weisberg Tests and distribution of the residuals were inspected using a skewness/kurtosis test and Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots. In the SOEE models, three outliers with high residuals and influence were removed and models were re-evaluated.

We first conducted a one-way analysis of variance to determine if there were any differences between the four constructs of gender expression and psychosocial factors for exercise. Next, one-way analysis of covariance models were conducted, where we adjusted for biological sex [68], age [68], and time post-stroke [10, 69] due to the known associations with exercise behaviours post-stroke. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to ensure that the selected covariates were not highly associated. We also tested for an interaction between our independent variable (BSRI-12) and each covariate.

If the unadjusted and adjusted models indicated differences in psychosocial factors for exercise outcomes between BSRI-12 groups, we subsequently conducted Sidak-adjusted pairwise comparisons to explore where the differences between the four BSRI-12 groups lay. The contrast in adjusted means, accompanying standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values were reported for BSRI-12 groups with significant differences in SEPA and SOEE scores, respectively. The accepted significance level was set a priori to a p<0.05, and all statistical analyses were performed on Stata/IC 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Data from 67 individuals (n = 43 males, 24 females) were included in this study. The supporting data are available on the McMaster University Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/T3Y8P1). Participant demographics for the full sample and disaggregated by gender expression group are shown in Table 1. The sample median value was 6 and 5.3 on the feminine and masculine subscales of the BSRI-12, respectively. The masculine (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, McDonald’s Omega 0.87) and feminine subscales (Cronbach’s alpha 0.89, McDonald’s Omega 0.89) of our sample had high internal consistency.

Table 1. Participant demographics for full sample (n = 67) and disaggregated by gender expression group.

All Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated p-value
N = 67 N = 17 (25.4) N = 17 (25.4) N = 17 (25.4) N = 16 (23.8)
Sex, n (%)
 Female 24 (35.8) 5 (29.4) 11 (64.7) 3 (17.6) 5 (31.3) 0.03
 Male 43 (64.2) 12 (70.6) 6 (35.3) 14 (82.4) 11 (68.8)
Age (years), Mean (SD) 65.1 (8.6) 63 (4.7) 66 (7.1) 65.1 (8.6) 65.9 (10.6) 0.81
Years post-stroke, Median [IQR] 2.1 [2.6] 1.88 [1.7] 2.43 [2.1] 1.93 [2.8] 2.3 [2.7] 0.98
Limb Affected, n (%) 0.12
 Right 32 (47.8) 8 (47.1) 4 (23.5) 11 (64.7) 9 (56.2)
 Left 34 (50.7) 9 (52.9) 13 (76.5) 6 (35.3) 6 (37.5)
 Bilateral 1 (1.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (6.3)
Stroke type, n (%) 0.69
 Ischemic 46 (68.7) 14 (82.3) 10 (58.8) 10 (58.8) 12 (75)
 Hemorrhagic 17 (25.4) 2 (11.8) 6 (35.3) 6 (35.3) 3 (18.7)
 Unknown 4 (5.9) 1 (5.9) 1 (5.9) 1 (5.9) 1 (6.3)
Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Median [IQR] 26.0 [6.0] 25.5 [2.5] 28 [7.5] 25 [12.0] 27 [9.0] 0.84
Modified Rankin Scale, Median [IQR] 1.0 [1.0] 1.0 [1.0] 1 [0] 1 [2] 2 [1] 0.40
Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity, Mean (SD) 3.17 (0.78) 3.6 (0.7) 3.2 (0.8) 3.1 (0.8) 2.7 (0.6) 0.01
Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise, Mean (SD) 4.13 (0.72) 3.9 (0.7) 4.3 (0.6) 4.3 (0.7) 4.0 (0.9) 0.42

Note. IQR = Interquartile Range, SD = Standard Deviation.

The covariates were deemed to not be highly correlated (r<0.13), and were maintained in the models as there were no interactions observed with the BSRI-12 in either the exercise self-efficacy or outcome expectations for exercise analyses. There were no missing data for any of the independent or dependent variables of interest for the 67 participants included in the study, and there was a balanced proportion of participants in each of the gender groups of the BSRI-12.

The SEPA demonstrated good internal consistency in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha 0.75, McDonald’s omega 0.76). The SEPA scores were normally distributed and there were no outliers. There were differences between gender expression groups observed [F(3,60) = 3.60, p = 0.02]. Sidak corrected post-hoc analyses indicated that differences in unadjusted means were observed between masculine and undifferentiated gender groups [unadjusted mean: 3.59 (SD: 0.68) vs. 2.75 (SD: 0.64), p = 0.01]. Differences between the four gender constructs in exercise self-efficacy remained after controlling for age, sex, and time post-stroke [F(3,60) = 4.28, p<0.01] (Table 2). Table 3 provides the adjusted means for each of the four gender groups. In pairwise comparisons, we found that individuals with masculine gender expressions had higher exercise self-efficacy than individuals with undifferentiated gender expressions [(adjusted mean: 3.56 (SE: 0.17) vs. 2.72 (SE:0.18), p<0.01)] (Fig 1 –Panel A; Table 3). There were no other differences in exercise self-efficacy between the four constructs of the BSRI-12 in either the unadjusted or adjusted models (Table 3).

Table 2. ANCOVA of the association between self-efficacy for physical activity scores and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory-12 (n = 67 participants).

Variables Partial Sum-of-squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares Root mean-square error = 0.71 R-squared = 0.25
F-Statistic P-value
Model 9.89 6 1.64 3.29 <0.01 *
BSRI-12 6.43 3 2.14 4.28 <0.01 *
Covariate: Sex 2.05 1 2.05 4.08 0.05
Covariate: Time post-stroke 1.76 1 1.76 3.51 0.07
Covariate: Age 0.00004 1 0.00004 0.00 0.9
Residual 30.08 60 0.50 - -
Total 39.97 66 0.61 - -

Note.

*p<0.05

Table 3. Mean SEPA scores between BSRI-12 groups adjusted for age, sex and, time post-stroke and Sidak correction adjusted post-hoc comparisons.

BSRI-12 SEPA Scores Standard Error 95% CIs
Feminine 3.32 0.18 2.95, 3.69
Masculine 3.56 0.17 3.21, 3.91
Androgynous 3.04 0.18 2.69, 3.40
Undifferentiated 2.72 0.18 2.36, 3.07
BSRI-12 comparison Contrast in Adjusted means Standard Error P-Value 95%CIs
Undifferentiated verses Feminine* -0.60 0.26 0.12 -1.30, 0.088
Androgynous verses Feminine* -0.28 0.26 0.87 -0.99, 0.43
Masculine verses Feminine* 0.24 0.26 0.93 -0.46, 0.93
Undifferentiated verses Masculine* -0.84 0.24 <0.01 ** -1.52, -0.17
Androgynous verses Masculine* -0.52 0.24 0.21 -1.18, 0.15
Undifferentiated verses Androgynous* -0.32 0.25 0.72 -1.00, 0.35

Note.

*Denotes the reference group in the comparison. SEPA = Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity Scores, BSRI-12 = Bem Sex Role Inventory-12,

**p<0.05

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Box-and-Whiskers Plots of Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity scores (Panel A) and Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise (Panel B) for feminine, masculine, androgynous and undifferentiated gender expressions assessed by the Bem Sex-Role Inventory-12, adjusted for age, sex and time post-stroke.

The SOEE also demonstrated high internal consistency in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, McDonald’s omega 0.87). Initially, the SOEE variable violated assumptions for normal distribution of residuals due to three major outliers observed in the Q-Q and fitted values against standardized residuals plots. All assumptions for distribution and homogeneity of variances were met, once the three outliers were removed. The outliers represent three different gender expression groups, ranged in age and predominantly experienced mild to moderate ischemic strokes. A detailed description of the characteristics of the three outliers are available as a supporting information file (S1 Table). There were no differences in unadjusted means between gender expression groups [F(3,60) = 0.88, p = 0.46]. Similarly, after adjusting for age, sex, and time post-stroke, no differences between the four constructs of gender were observed [F(3,57) = 1.08, p = 0.36] (Table 4 & Fig 1 –Panel B). No further post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted. Table 5 provides the adjusted means for each of the four gender groups.

Table 4. ANCOVA of the association between the Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise scores and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory-12 (n = 64 participants).

Variables Partial Sum-of-squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares Root mean-square error = 0.58 R-squared = 0.14
F-Statistic P-value
Model 3.14 6 0.52 1.59 0.17
BSRI-12 1.07 3 0.36 1.08 0.36
Covariate: Sex 0.0021 1 0.0021 0.01 0.94
Covariate: Time post-stroke 2.00 1 2.00 6.06 0.02*
Covariate: Age 0.26 1 0.26 0.80 0.38
Residual 18.82 57 0.33 - -
Total 21.96 63 0.35 - -

Note.

*p<0.05

Table 5. Mean SOEE scores between BSRI-12 groups adjusted for age, sex and, time post-stroke.

BSRI-12 SOEE Scores Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval
Feminine 4.31 0.14 4.03, 4.60
Masculine 4.04 0.14 3.74, 4.33
Androgynous 4.37 0.15 4.07, 4.68
Undifferentiated 4.17 0.15 3.86, 4.48

Note. SOEE = Short Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scores, BSRI-12 = Bem Sex Role Inventory-12

Discussion

This exploratory study is the first to contribute to the literature surrounding gender expressions differences in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with stroke. Our findings suggest that individuals possessing masculine gender expressions had higher exercise self-efficacy than individuals with undifferentiated gender expressions. There were no differences among gender expressions and outcome expectations for exercise.

Our findings of higher exercise self-efficacy among individuals with masculine gender expressions are consistent with our hypothesis and previous literature in young [26, 27, 30] and older adults [23, 24, 28, 29, 31]. Clinicians and researchers may thus consider the assessment of gender through validated tools such as the BSRI-12 as standard practice in the delivery of stroke care. Masculine gender traits, such as possessing greater behavioural control (i.e., perceived ease of performing exercise), have shown to contribute positively to beliefs in successfully engaging in exercise [70]. In contrast, the likelihood of possessing traits favourable for exercise engagement may be lower in individuals with undifferentiated gender [42] (i.e. neither masculine or feminine gender expressions), thereby contributing to lower exercise-related mastery experiences that are primary drivers of exercise self-efficacy [71]. Moreover, individuals with undifferentiated gender traits are more likely to be at a greater risk of mobility disability [51] and report greater levels of social anxiety [72] and depression [73], in contrast to other gender expressions. Indeed, low self-efficacy is often a precursor for social anxiety [74]. The current study adds to the growing body of evidence of poorer health outcomes of individuals with undifferentiated gender traits, and highlights the need to develop and incorporate strategies to promote exercise self-efficacy after stroke that are specific to the needs of these individuals. Such strategies may include greater emphasis placed on individualized exercise programs with clinicians working 1:1 with patients, or involving other patients with similar functional abilities since individuals with undifferentiated gender expressions may not possess competitive nor dominant traits, nor focus on the perceptions and needs of others [22, 42]. These strategies may not only promote exercise self-efficacy but may also minimize social anxiety.

Outcome expectations for exercise did not differ between the four gender expression groups, which is comparable to literature in an older adult population (mean age 77 years old) [52] but differ from younger adults (range of mean age 18–48 years old) [34, 3840]. It may be that factors facilitating exercise are different between younger and older adults. A study of older men and women across a range of gender expressions hypothesized that individuals with instrumental traits would possess the most favourable outcomes in self-reported physical health function, wellness, and life satisfaction but in fact found no differences between the four groups [52]. In contrast, factors contributing to higher enjoyment and positive outcome expectations for exercise among younger individuals with masculine genders, include gains in fitness [34], higher self-rated health [40], and satisfaction with leisure activities [38, 39], which may not as relevant to older adults and those with stroke. Indeed, a systematic review of 6 qualitative and focus group studies of participants with stroke (n = 175, 54–71 years old) reported that the primary facilitators to positive exercise behaviours included social support from family members and clinicians [75], which may contribute to positive perceptions of exercise. The reported barriers were primarily related to environmental factors (e.g., transportation, costs) and physical impairments after stroke [75]. Only one study described psychosocial factors related to outcome expectations, such as the belief that exercise will not improve their condition and being boring and/or monotonous [14]. The positive outcomes expectations of exercise after stroke were related to enjoyment, improving mood and feeling better as reported by individuals across all genders in our study, thus reinforcing exercise behaviours as an important rehabilitation goal for individuals with stroke.

It is worth noting that the median mRS score (1 [IQR 1]) for the current sample would classify disability from stroke as mild, which may also have contributed to the relatively high outcome expectations for exercise. A recent study of 87 individuals with stroke reported that higher levels of disability was associated with lower engagement in physical activity [76]. We note however that nearly one-third of the sample presented with mRS scores greater than 3, and barriers to physical activity engagement included beliefs that physical activity was unsafe, fear of falling and causing pain, and being too tired [76]. Thus, level of disability could have a moderating role on the association between gender expression and perceptions of physical activity outcomes after stroke. Given that our sample encompassed individuals of relatively low disability measured by mRS, we were not able to explore this consideration further but suggest this may be an area of future research.

Strengths

There remains a need for validated and comprehensive gender indices to better understand gender expression among individuals with stroke, however a strength of this study was the equal distribution of participants in each group of the BSRI-12, including individuals possessing androgynous and undifferentiated gender expressions. There has been limited research to date focused on gender expression differences in psychosocial outcomes after stroke and no evidence in cross-sex-typed genders. Our study, examining psychosocial outcomes for exercise across sex-typed and cross-sex-typed individuals with stroke offers a balanced perspective to the current body of literature. Further research may continue to build on this work with the goal of providing evidence to support targeted stroke rehabilitation to address the psychosocial needs of individuals with stroke across gender expressions.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, we recognize that the traits of masculinity and femininity captured by the BSRI-12 may not reflect those of today’s society, but this is the most commonly used and recommended questionnaire [18] to capture the construct of gender expression. Moreover, our study did not take into account other psychological variables that may be associated with exercise behaviours, such as apathy and depression yet are common after stroke, especially among women [77, 78]. We also did not collect data on current physical activity levels or pre-stroke gender expression or exercise behaviours, and thus were unable to determine how the stroke further affected exercise self-efficacy across gender expressions. Future research may explore the fluidity of gender by exploring longitudinal analyses of the associations of gender expression and exercise behaviours prior to and after stroke. Moreover, given the exploratory nature of this study and sparsity of previous literature on gender-based based considerations in this population, we did not perform a sample size calculation. Our data may inform future research to consult our group means and variances. Finally, authors of a previous study in older adults with arthritis have suggested that a ceiling effect on the SOEE questionnaire may exist, given the high scores obtained on the questionnaire (mean 4.1 out of 5) [79]. As such, future research may consider using other measures to explore outcome expectations for exercises in clinical populations.

Conclusions

Results from this exploratory study are the first to provide insight into the associations between gender expressions and psychosocial variables may affect exercise engagement in individuals living with stroke. We observed that there are gender differences in exercise self-efficacy, where individuals possessing masculine gender expressions had higher exercise self-efficacy than individuals with undifferentiated gender expressions. Our findings also suggest that although psychosocial changes are common after stroke, gender expression may not influence outcome expectations for exercise to the extent that we may have expected. Overall, our findings highlight the need for strategies such as 1:1 patient-to-therapist ratio exercises programs or involving other individuals with similar functional abilities, to optimize exercise self-efficacy among cross-sex-typed individuals with stroke, and continued reinforcement of the positive perceptions and expectations towards exercise across all gender expressions.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Characteristics of the outliers removed from the model exploring the differences in gender expression and outcome expectations for exercise.

(DOCX)

pone.0299288.s001.docx (13.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the participants that invested their time in participating in this research study.

Data Availability

Data are available through the McMaster University Dataverse via https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/T3Y8P1 The longer format can also be found here: https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/T3Y8P1.

Funding Statement

The baseline data collected from the randomized controlled trial (HIREB 4713 & CRIR-1310-0218) was supported by an operational grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (388320). The Canadian Institutes of Health Research had no role in the design of this study, its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.

References

  • 1.Saunders DH, Sanderson M, Hayes S, Johnson L, Kramer S, Carter DD, et al. Physical fitness training for stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3:CD003316. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Oberlin LE, Waiwood AM, Cumming TB, Marsland AL, Bernhardt J, Erickson KI. Effects of Physical Activity on Poststroke Cognitive Function: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Stroke. 2017;48(11):3093–100. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.D’Isabella NT, Shkredova DA, Richardson JA, Tang A. Effects of exercise on cardiovascular risk factors following stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2017. Dec;31(12):1561–72. doi: 10.1177/0269215517709051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang C, Redgrave J, Shafizadeh M, Majid A, Kilner K, Ali AN. Aerobic exercise interventions reduce blood pressure in patients after stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019. Dec;53(24):1515–25. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Billinger SA, Arena R, Bernhardt J, Eng JJ, Franklin BA, Johnson CM, et al. Physical Activity and Exercise Recommendations for Stroke Survivors. Stroke. 2014;45(8):2532–53. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Field MJ, Gebruers N, Sundaram TS, Nicholson S, Mead G. Physical Activity after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ISRN Stroke. 2013:1–13. doi: 10.1155/2013/464176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Damush TM, Plue L, Bakas T, Schmid A, Williams LS. Barriers and facilitators to exercise among stroke survivors. Rehabil Nurs. 2007;32(6):253–60. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2007.tb00183.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nicholson SL, Donaghy M, Johnston M, Sniehotta FF, van Wijck F, Johnston D, et al. A qualitative theory guided analysis of stroke survivors’ perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity. Disabil Rehab. 2014;36(22):1857–68. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.874506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Reed M, Harrington R, Duggan A, Wood VA. Meeting stroke survivors’ perceived needs: a qualitative study of a community-based exercise and education scheme. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(1):16–25. doi: 10.1177/0269215509347433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Tawashy AE. Exercise perceptions among people with stroke: Barriers and facilitators to participation. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2011. Sep 6;18(9):520–30. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2011.18.9.520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Maher EJ, Kinne S, Patrick DL. “Finding a good thing”: the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate an exercise class and promote exercise for adults with mobility impairments. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(9):438–47. doi: 10.1080/096382899297422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Barker RN, Brauer SG. Upper limb recovery after stroke: the stroke survivors’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(20):1213–23. doi: 10.1080/09638280500075717 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Carin-Levy G, Kendall M, Young A, et al. The psychosocial effects of exercise and relaxation classes for persons surviving a stroke. Can J Occup Ther. 2009;76(2):73–80. doi: 10.1177/000841740907600204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rimmer JH, Wang E, Smith D. Barriers Associated With Exercise and Community Access for Individuals With Stroke. J Rehabil Res. Dev 2008;45(2):315–22. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2007.02.0042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Resnick B, Spellbring AM. Understanding What Motivates Older Adults to Exercise. J Gerontol Nurs. 2000;26. doi: 10.3928/0098-9134-20000301-08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moncion K, Biasin L, Jagroop D, Bayley M, Danells C, Mansfield A, et al. Barriers and Facilitators to Aerobic Exercise Implementation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020;44(3):179–87. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Inness EL, Jagroop D, Andreoli A, Bayley M, Biasin L, Danells C, et al. Factors That Influence the Clinical Implementation of Aerobic Exercise in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Theory-Informed Qualitative Study. Phys Ther. 2022;102(6):pzac014. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, Graham ID. Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0247-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carcel C, Reeves M. Under-Enrollment of Women in Stroke Clinical Trials: What Are the Causes and What Should Be Done About It? Stroke. 2021. Jan;52(2):452–7. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Beltz AM, Loviska AM, Weigard A. Daily gender expression is associated with psychological adjustment for some people, but mainly men. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):9114. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88279-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Melloni C, Berger JS, Wang T, Gunes F, Stebbins A, Pieper KS, et al. Representation of Women in Randomized Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2010;3(2):135–42. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.868307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bem SL. The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1974;42(2):155–62. doi: 10.1037/h0036215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chen YM, Li YP, Yen ML. Gender Differences in the Predictors of Physical Activity Among Assisted Living Residents. J Nurs Sch. 2015;47(3):211–8. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chiu CJ, Wray LA. Gender differences in functional limitations in adults living with type 2 diabetes: biobehavioral and psychosocial mediators. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(1):71–82. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9226-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Delahanty LM, Conroy MB, Nathan DM, Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Psychological predictors of physical activity in the diabetes prevention program. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(5):698–705. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.McAuley E, Courneya KS, Lettunich J. Effects of Acute and Long-Term Exercise on Self- Efficacy Responses in Sedentary, Middle-Aged Males and Females. Gerontologist. 1991;31(4):534–42. doi: 10.1093/geront/31.4.534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Spence JC, Blanchard CM, Clark M, Plotnikoff RC, Storey KE, McCargar L et al. The role of self-efficacy in explaining gender differences in physical activity among adolescents: a multilevel analysis. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(2):176–83. doi: 10.1123/jpah.7.2.176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Umstattd MR, Hallam J. Older adults’ exercise behavior: roles of selected constructs of social-cognitive theory. J Aging Phys Act. 2007;15(2):206–18. doi: 10.1123/japa.15.2.206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee YS. Gender differences in physical activity and walking among older adults. J Women Aging. 2005;17(1–2):55–70. doi: 10.1300/J074v17n01_05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nehl EJ, Blanchard CM, Kupperman J, et al. Exploring Physical Activity by Ethnicity and Gender in College Students Using Social Cognitive Theory. ICHPER-SD J Res. 2012;7(2):11–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Barrett JE, Plotnikoff RC, Courneya KS, Raine KD. Physical activity and type 2 diabetes: exploring the role of gender and income. Diabetes Educ. 2007;33(1):128–43. doi: 10.1177/0145721706297453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Butt J, Weinberg RS, Breckon JD, Claytor RP. Adolescent physical activity participation and motivational determinants across gender, age, and race. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(8):1074–83. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.8.1074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gao Z, Xiang P. College students’ motivation toward weight training: An application of expectancy-value model. J Teach Phys Educ. 2008;27(3):399–415. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.27.3.399 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Craft BB, Carroll HA, Lustyk MKB. Gender Differences in Exercise Habits and Quality of Life Reports: Assessing the Moderating Effects of Reasons for Exercise. Int J Lib Arts Soc Sci. 2014;2(5):65–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zervou F, Stavrou NAM, Koehn S, Zounhia K, Psychountaki M. Motives for exercise participation: The role of individual and psychological characteristics. Cogent Psychol. 2017;4(1):1345141. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2017.1345141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ednie A, Stibor M. Influence and interpretation of intrinsic and extrinsic exercise motives. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2017;12(2):414–25. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2017.122.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.van Uffelen JGZ, Khan A, Burton NW. Gender differences in physical activity motivators and context preferences: a population-based study in people in their sixties. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):624. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4540-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.González-Cutre D, Sicilia A, Águila C. Interplay of Different Contextual Motivations and Their Implications for Exercise Motivation. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10:274–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Daig I, Herschbach P, Lehmann A, Knoll N, Decker O. Gender and age differences in domain-specific life satisfaction and the impact of depressive and anxiety symptoms: a general population survey from Germany. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):669–78. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9481-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mao HY, Hsu HC, Lee SD. Gender differences in related influential factors of regular exercise behavior among people in Taiwan in 2007: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0228191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Shifren K, Bauserman RL. The relationship between instrumental and expressive traits, health behaviors, and perceived physical health. Sex Roles. 1996;34(11–12):841–64. doi: 10.1007/BF01544319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Juster RP, Pruessner JC, Desrochers AB, et al. Sex and Gender Roles in Relation to Mental Health and Allostatic Load. Psychosom Med. 2016;78(7):788–804. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rodrigues L, Moncion K, Eng JJ, Noguchi KS, Wiley E, de Las Heras B, et al. Intensity matters: protocol for a randomized controlled trial exercise intervention for individuals with chronic stroke. Trials. 2022;23(1):442. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06359-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Riebe D, Franklin BA, Thompson PD, Ewing Garber C, Whitfield GP, Magal M, et al. Updating ACSM’s Recommendations for Exercise Preparticipation Health Screening. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(11):2473–9. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957. May;2(5):200–15. doi: 10.1177/003693305700200504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Carver LF, Vafaei A, Guerra R, et al. Gender differences: examination of the 12-item bem sex role inventory (BSRI-12) in an older Brazilian population. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mateo M, Fernández J. La dimensionalidad de los conceptos de masculinidad y feminidad. Investigaciones Psicológicas. 1991;9:95–116. doi: 10.6018/analesps.481821 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Spence JT, Helmreich R, Stapp J. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;32(1):29–39. doi: 10.1037/h0076857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bem SL. Bem Sex-Role Inventory: professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ahmed T, Vafaei A, Auais M, Guralnik J, Zunzunegui MV. Gender Roles and Physical Function in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Analysis of the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS). PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gale-Ross R, Baird A, Towson S. Gender role, life satisfaction, and wellness: androgyny in a southwestern Ontario sample. Can J Aging. 2009. Jun;28(2):135–46. doi: 10.1017/S0714980809090187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ahmed T, Vafaei A, Belanger E, Phillips SP, Zunzunegui MV. Bem Sex Role Inventory Validation in the International Mobility in Aging Study. Can J Aging. 2016;35(3):348–60. doi: 10.1017/S0714980816000404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bandura A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J Soc Clin Psychol. 1986;4(3):359–73. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):143–64. doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bandura A. Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Blacklock R, Rhodes R, Blanchard C, Gaul C. Effects of exercise intensity and self-efficacy on state anxiety with breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37(2):206–12. doi: 10.1188/10.ONF.206-212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Miller KJ, Mesagno C, McLaren S, Grace F, Yates M, Gomez R. Exercise, Mood, Self-Efficacy, and Social Support as Predictors of Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults: Direct and Interaction Effects. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2145. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.McAuley E, Szabo A, Gothe N, Olson EA. Self-efficacy: Implications for Physical Activity, Function, and Functional Limitations in Older Adults. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2011;5(4). doi: 10.1177/1559827610392704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Anderson ES, Wojcik JR, Winett RA, et al. Social-cognitive determinants of physical activity: the influence of social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self- regulation among participants in a church-based health promotion study. Health Psychol. 2006. Jul;25(4):510–20. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.McAuley E, Blissmer B. Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2000. Apr;28(2):85–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Shaughnessy M, Resnick BM, Macko RF. Testing a model of post-stroke exercise behavior. Rehabil Nurs. 2006. Feb;31(1):15–21. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2006.tb00005.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS. Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992;63(1):60–6. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10607557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mendoza-Vasconez AS, Marquez B, Benitez TJ, Marcus BH. Psychometrics of the self-efficacy for physical activity scale among a Latina women sample. BMC Public. 2018;18:1097. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5998-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wójcicki TR, White SM, McAuley E. Assessing outcome expectations in older adults: the multidimensional outcome expectations for exercise scale. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64:33–40. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbn032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Resnick B, Zimmerman SI, Orwig D, Furstenberg AL, Magaziner J. Outcome Expectations for Exercise Scale Utility and Psychometrics. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2000;55:S352–6. doi: 10.1093/geronb/55.6.s352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Shaughnessy M, Resnick BM, Macko RF. Reliability and validity testing of the short self- efficacy and outcome expectation for exercise scales in stroke survivors. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;13(5):214–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2004.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Thilarajah S, Mentiplay BF, Bower KJ, Tan D, Hao Pua Y, Williams G, et al. Factors Associated With Post-Stroke Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(9):1876–89. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.09.117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Törnbom K, Sunnerhagen KS, Danielsson A. Perceptions of physical activity and walking in an early stage after stroke or acquired brain injury. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0173463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Edwards ES, Sackett SC. Psychosocial Variables Related to Why Women are Less Active than Men and Related Health Implications. Clin Med Insights Womens Health. 2016;9(1)47–56. doi: 10.4137/CMWH.S34668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wise JB, Trunnell EP. The Influence of Sources of Self-Efficacy Upon Efficacy Strength. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2001;23(4):268–80. doi: 10.1123/jsep.23.4.268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Goodman S, Kantor D. Influence of sex-role identity on two indices of social anxiety. J Res Pers. 1983;17:443–50. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(83)90071-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Szpitalak M, Prochwicz K. [Psychological gender in clinical depression. Preliminary study]. Psychiatr Pol. 2013;47(1):53–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tahmassian K, Jalali Moghadam N. Relationship between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety, depression, worry and social avoidance in a normal sample of students. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2011;5(2):91–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nicholson S, Sniehotta FF, van Wijck F, Greig CA, Johnston M, McMurdo MET, et al. A Systematic Review of Perceived Barriers and Motivators to Physical Activity after Stroke. Int J Stroke. 2013;8(5):357–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00880.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Noukpo SI, Triccas LT, Bonnechère B, Adoukonou T, Feys P, Kossi O. Physical Activity Level, Barriers, and Facilitators for Exercise Engagement for Chronic Community-Dwelling Stroke Survivors in Low-Income Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study in Benin. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):1784. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Mayo NE, Fellows LK, Scott SC, Cameron J, Wood-Dauphinee S. A Longitudinal View of Apathy and Its Impact After Stroke. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3299–307. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.554410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Rexrode KM, Madsen TE, Yu AYX, Carcel C, Litchman JH, Miller EC. The Impact of Sex and Gender on Stroke. Circ Res. 2022;130(4):512–28. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.319915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Mielenz TJ, Kubiak-Rizzone KL, Alvarez KJ, Hlavacek PR, Freburger JK, Giuliani C, et al. Association of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations with Physical Activity in Adults with Arthritis. Arthritis 2013;2013:e621396. doi: 10.1155/2013/621396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Henry Hugh Bailey

28 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-30818Exploring gender differences in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with strokePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henry Hugh Bailey, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. 

Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include a caption for figure 1.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Please address the issues raised by the reviewers- in particular, please carefully address the statistical issues raised by Reviewer #3.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this well written manuscript. I have some minor suggestions to improve the manuscript before publication detailed below.

General:

Gender and gender expression are used interchangeably throughout. Please review the manuscript and take care to explicitly refer to gender expression whenever relevant.

Title: The title needs to clarify that this refers to gender expression and not gender.

Introduction: There needs to be better clarification of what gender expression is and how it differs from biological sex and gender identification e.g. I may be born female, identify as female but have a male gender expression. This differentiation was not clear to me, as a novice on gender expression, until I read the section on the BSRI-12.

Although paragraph 3 introduces gender expression a more detailed description of gender expression and its constructs is warranted.

Paragraph 4 of the introduction refers to gender differences in exercise and outcome. Please clarify if this refers to biological sex, self-identified gender or gender expression.

Results:

It would be of interest to see what masculine expressions are related to exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectation. Would the authors consider analysing these 12 criteria separately. This may change the recommendation for clinical practice to not test for gender expression as a whole but those specific criteria. Your discussion does also point to other research which has looked at these individual characteristics.

Discussion:

Please take care to be consistent in your reference to gender and gender expression.

I would also question whether left/right dominance and the side affected by the stroke may affect once perception of self-efficacy and exercise outcome. I would suggest that this is explored in the analysis or discussed as a consideration for future research/limitation.

Please check spelling of self-efficacy throughout as it is variable - hypenated, one word, two words.

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

The authors presented the introduction in a clear and structured manner. However, while the authors stated that there is a gap in knowledge about whether gender-related associations exist in the context of psychosocial factors for exercise, I feel that they need to expand a bit more on this in order to better explain the justification for the study and the study's original contribution to knowledge. The authors described the literature on stroke and exercise, and exercise and gender expression. I'm curious as to whether there is any literature about any gender-based factors in persons with stroke outside of exercise, which may add to the understanding of how gender-based factors may affect exercise in this population. This may help explain the 'gap' in the literature a bit better.

Analysis/Methods:

I have concerns about the sample size. There is no indication of a power analysis or sample size estimation calculations described so it is difficult to say whether the study was sufficiently powered.

Also, while the sample was one of convenience from community, and databases, how did they go about recruiting from these? What was their recruitment process - phone, flyers - how were participants contacted? How did they assess for the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

There were no tests performed on the independent variables to determine whether the groups were different in any of the demographic factors. Also, the gender groups and demographic characteristics of the outliers should be mentioned.

Is the median-split a valid way to categorise participants into gender groups? The authors gave no justification for doing the classification this way. How does the BSRI-12 classify persons? Why did the authors not use this method of classification? I did a brief search of the tool and found that the median-split has been used as a way to classify participants into gender roles. This should be better detailed in the study.

Overall:

There are a few grammatical errors but these do not affect the understanding of the article and can be easily rectified.

The suggestions for future research are very good given the cited limitations of the study.

Overall, the study is relevant to today's evolving society and highlights important considerations, however, there are some recommended corrections that I think would be helpful in improving the validity of the study.

Reviewer #3: I enjoyed reviewing this paper. The topic is quite interesting and relevant for tx planning in stroke rehab. The paper is generally solid in terms of clarity and style of writing. The analysis is articulated clearly.

I have indicated "major" revision somewhat arbitrarily, mainly because I have several comments that I think would strengthen the paper, but I think you will be readily able to address these.

First, a few straightforward editing recommendations:

Line 96: Word choice. Is "transpire" what you mean. Consider "persist" or "continue."

97: Should read: "...people with masculine gender traits are more likely..."

99: "reported" should read "report" (be consistent with tense)

116: should be "knowledge of" or "knowledge regarding"

124:The use of "outcomes" without qualification here is a bit confusing. Would be better to specify that you expect lower self-efficacy and expectations so the reader doesn't conflate scale scores with exercise outcomes.

137: "ethic" should be "ethics"

182-83: I suggest eliminating the text in parentheses.

300: "between" should be "among"

In general, you should be consistent with use of Oxford commas.

Now, a few more substantive recommendations:

1. When you first mention outliers, the number is not indicated. Later, you mention removing outliers in the analysis of the SOEE. I think you provide a clear statement about all outliers removed and when. This is especially important given your relatively small sample size.

2. I see that you reported alphas for the BSRI subscales, but I don't see them for the other instruments. Reporting internal consistency for all scales is a good idea. Also, you might consider reporting McDonald's Omega, given criticisms of the restrictive assumptions of alpha. I recently had this critique myself from a reviewer and just reported both.

3. You mention some literature on people with undifferentiated traits, but I think this deserves more elaboration in your discussion. You expected to find other differences as well between masculine and feminine traits, so the finding stands out. More discussion on personality correlates and health outcomes for people with undifferentiated traits would flesh out the paper--and be relevant for clinicians working with this group.

4. Your sample size mey have limited power to find some differences. Addressing this explicitly in limitations and recommendations would add to the paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Michael H. Campbell

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0299288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299288.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Jan 2024

Response Document: “Exploring gender differences in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with stroke”

We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments to strengthen the manuscript even further. We have provided a point-by-point response to each comment in below, and have uploaded a clean and revised manuscript to the portal. Additions to the manuscript have been added in yellow highlight.

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the opportunity to review this well written manuscript. I have some minor suggestions to improve the manuscript before publication detailed below.

General

Gender and gender expression are used interchangeably throughout. Please review the manuscript and take care to explicitly refer to gender expression whenever relevant.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank Reviewer #1 for their comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We appreciate the attention to detail with this comment and have revised the manuscript to ensure that “gender expression” terminology is used where relevant throughout.

Title: The title needs to clarify that this refers to gender expression and not gender.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have revised the title to “Exploring differences between gender expressions in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with stroke”.

Introduction: There needs to be better clarification of what gender expression is and how it differs from biological sex and gender identification e.g. I may be born female, identify as female but have a male gender expression. This differentiation was not clear to me, as a novice on gender expression, until I read the section on the BSRI-12.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree it is important to clarify that sex and gender constructs are interrelated but not interchangeable. On lines page 3, lines 87-96, we have added definition that is specific to gender expression, and a definition of biological sex to reflect the differentiation between the constructs.

Page 3, Line 87-96: Gender expression refers to the traits, thoughts and beliefs an individual possesses regarding their gender self-concept, whereby gender expression is most commonly expressed on a fluid spectrum of masculinity to femininity [20]. Importantly, an individual’s gender expression may differ from their biological sex at birth [18]. Sex is a biological construct, whereby an individual is characterized as being male or female according to genetics, anatomy, and physiology [18], which influence biological processes such as ageing and prevalence, diagnosis, severity, and outcomes of disease [21].

Although paragraph 3 introduces gender expression a more detailed description of gender expression and its constructs is warranted.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: On Page 3, Lines 87-91, we have added a detailed definition of gender expression.

Page 3, Lines 87-91: Gender expression refers to the traits, thoughts and beliefs an individual possesses regarding their gender self-concept, whereby gender expression is most commonly expressed on a fluid spectrum of masculinity to femininity [20].

Paragraph 4 of the introduction refers to gender differences in exercise and outcome. Please clarify if this refers to biological sex, self-identified gender or gender expression.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment. As we refer to men and women and behavioral factors related to exercise in paragraph 4, we have added the specification around “gender expression”.

Page 4, Lines 102-105: An individual’s gender expression may have an important influence on their exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise, whereby differences in exercise behaviours between individuals possessing masculine versus feminine gender expressions are reported early in life and persist into adulthood [23–31].

Results: It would be of interest to see what masculine expressions are related to exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectation. Would the authors consider analysing these 12 criteria separately. This may change the recommendation for clinical practice to not test for gender expression as a whole but those specific criteria. Your discussion does also point to other research which has looked at these individual characteristics.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The intent of the BSRI-12 tool is to classify participants as possessing masculine, feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated gender expressions based on the overall mean values obtained on the masculine and feminine subscales, in relation to the sample medians, respectively.

As such, it is not advised to conduct analyses of individual items within each feminine and/or masculine subscale. Furthermore, as the constructs of gender (gender expression, roles, identity, etc.) are fluid, the developers of the BSRI would not advise relying on potentially one gender trait in isolation in clinical practice, and would rather advise the use of a holistic composite measure of gender expression, as we have presented.

In our Discussion, we present strategies that are in line with competitive and dominant traits, as well as the perceptions and needs of others. These are overarching traits used to describe the items within each of the masculine and feminine subscales of the BSRI-12. For example, within the feminine subscale, “sympathetic”, “sensitive to needs of others” and “affectionate” can all be grouped under “perceptions and needs of others”, and thus reiterating that feminine gender expression encompasses a variety of traits.

Discussion: Please take care to be consistent in your reference to gender and gender expression.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and have ensured the reference to gender expression is included as appropriate throughout.

I would also question whether left/right dominance and the side affected by the stroke may affect once perception of self-efficacy and exercise outcome. I would suggest that this is explored in the analysis or discussed as a consideration for future research/limitation.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: The reviewer raises an intriguing suggestion of influence of hand dominance and side of stroke. There have been no previous reports of the association between these factors and psychosocial factors for exercise post-stroke, thus we did not opt to include these as variables in our analyses. Given our sample size, the covariates we selected were based on strong evidence of associations with gender expression and psychosocial outcomes for exercise in stroke.

Please check spelling of self-efficacy throughout as it is variable - hypenated, one word, two words.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and have ensured adequate spelling of ‘self-efficacy’ throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Introduction: The authors presented the introduction in a clear and structured manner. However, while the authors stated that there is a gap in knowledge about whether gender-related associations exist in the context of psychosocial factors for exercise, I feel that they need to expand a bit more on this in order to better explain the justification for the study and the study's original contribution to knowledge. The authors described the literature on stroke and exercise, and exercise and gender expression. I'm curious as to whether there is any literature about any gender-based factors in persons with stroke outside of exercise, which may add to the understanding of how gender-based factors may affect exercise in this population. This may help explain the 'gap' in the literature a bit better.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that although it is an evolving and greatly important area of research, there is very little literature around gender-based considerations in the stroke population. To date, research in this population has eluded to gender roles (representing the behavioral norms applied to men and women in society) (Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, Graham I, 2016; BMC Medical Research Methodology) commonly possessed by women are barriers to participation to stroke rehabilitation. For example, women with stroke are more likely to possess a primary caregiver role which limits their ability to prioritize their own needs, and less likely to view stroke as a major health concern thus limiting their motivation to participate in stroke rehabilitation or clinical trials (Carcel & Reeves 2021; Stroke). We have added these insights on page 3 (Line 79-91) to reinforce the need for the current study.

Page 3, Lines 79-91: There have been preliminary reports of gender-based considerations being associated with participation in stroke rehabilitation programs, specifically around barriers faced by women. With regards to the construct of gender roles (representing the behavioral norms applied to men and women in society) [18], women with stroke are more likely to possess primary caregiver roles, whereby it is increasingly difficult to focus on their own health when pressures to prioritize the needs of others are present [19]. Moreover, women are less likely to view stroke as a major health concern which limits their motivation to participate in stroke rehabilitation [19]. These gender roles may also influence exercise behaviours.

Gender expression is a construct of gender that has not been studied in individuals with stroke but may be an important factor associated with exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise. Gender expression refers to the traits, thoughts and beliefs an individual possesses regarding their gender self-concept, whereby gender expression is most commonly expressed on a fluid spectrum of masculinity to femininity [20].

We do want to emphasize that our study is the first to date to explore the construct of gender expression and how it relates to exercise-related behaviours after stroke.

Analysis/Methods: I have concerns about the sample size. There is no indication of a power analysis or sample size estimation calculations described so it is difficult to say whether the study was sufficiently powered.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment. There have been no previous studies examining gender-based considerations in individuals with stroke, thus we did not have previously reported group means and variance/standard deviations for a rigorous sample size calculation. We have positioned this study as an exploratory study for which we hope future research that may benefit from our data to inform ANCOVA sample size calculations. We also emphasize the balanced cells between BSRI-12 groups as a substantial strength of our study. Nonetheless, we have added the lack of sample size calculation as a limitation of the study (Page 19, Lines 395-398).

Page 19 (Lines 395-398): Moreover, given the exploratory nature of this study and sparsity of previous literature on gender-based based considerations in this population, we did not perform a sample size calculation. Our data may inform future research to consult our group means and variances.

Also, while the sample was one of convenience from community, and databases, how did they go about recruiting from these? What was their recruitment process - phone, flyers - how were participants contacted? How did they assess for the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

AUTHOR RESPONSE: On page 6, 156-160, we elaborate on our recruitment strategies.

Page 6, Line 156-160: Members of the research team attended monthly meetings of community stroke groups and provided a brief presentation of the research study, distributed study flyers, addressed questions, and collected phone numbers of interested individuals. For all recruitment methods, participants were screened for eligibility for the study over the phone with a member of the study team.

There were no tests performed on the independent variables to determine whether the groups were different in any of the demographic factors. Also, the gender groups and demographic characteristics of the outliers should be mentioned.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with this comment. We have revised Table 1 to also include disaggregated data for each gender expression group. On page 14 (lines 297-300) we provided a summary of the characteristics of the three outliers. In order to provide as much information possible into the characteristics of the three outliers, we have uploaded a supplementary file that presents all their demographic information.

Page 14, Lines 297-300: The outliers represent three different gender expression groups, ranged in age and predominantly experienced mild to moderate ischemic strokes. A detailed description of the characteristics of three outliers are provided in supplementary file 1.

Is the median-split a valid way to categorise participants into gender groups? The authors gave no justification for doing the classification this way. How does the BSRI-12 classify persons? Why did the authors not use this method of classification? I did a brief search of the tool and found that the median-split has been used as a way to classify participants into gender roles. This should be better detailed in the study.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment and we would like to clarify our selection of this scoring method. Firstly, the seminal papers by Bem 1981 and Spence 1975 cited on page 8 (Line 184) addresses the strengths of using the median-split method for scoring the BSRI. Secondly, the median split method is commonly used for samples with older adults or chronic conditions, as the alternative normative value approach established by Sandra Bem was conducted in younger youth populations and would not be reflective of our population. We have added a statement in on Page 8 (Lines 184-187) to explain our choice of the median-split method.

Page 8, Lines 184-187: We used the median-split to classify the BSRI-12 [49,50]. This commonly used approach in older adult populations [51,52] was selected as the alternative approach to using normative values which was based on a sample of younger adults [22], and thus not representative of our sample.

We would like to clarify that the terminology “gender roles” and “gender expression” is used interchangeably in the literature, though we strongly argue that gender roles is not appropriate to describe the specific construct measured by the BSRI-12. Gender roles “represent the behavioral norms applied to men and women in society, which influence individuals’ everyday actions, expectations, and experiences (e.g., caregiver and housework responsibilities)” (Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, Graham I, 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology), whereas gender expression represents the traits that individuals use to describe their behaviours and personality (Beltz 2021; Sci Rep). Indeed, the latter definition is reflective of the constructs assessed by the BSRI-12.

Overall:

There are a few grammatical errors but these do not affect the understanding of the article and can be easily rectified.

The suggestions for future research are very good given the cited limitations of the study.

Overall, the study is relevant to today's evolving society and highlights important considerations, however, there are some recommended corrections that I think would be helpful in improving the validity of the study.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We appreciate the positive feedback and constructive criticism from Reviewer #2 and have incorporate the feedback to help improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: I enjoyed reviewing this paper. The topic is quite interesting and relevant for tx planning in stroke rehab. The paper is generally solid in terms of clarity and style of writing. The analysis is articulated clearly.

I have indicated "major" revision somewhat arbitrarily, mainly because I have several comments that I think would strengthen the paper, but I think you will be readily able to address these.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Thank you to Reviewer #3 for the positive feedback and for the tremendously helpful feedback, of which we hope we adequately addressed in the revised manuscript.

First, a few straightforward editing recommendations:

Line 96: Word choice. Is "transpire" what you mean. Consider "persist" or "continue."

97: Should read: "...people with masculine gender traits are more likely..."

99: "reported" should read "report" (be consistent with tense)

116: should be "knowledge of" or "knowledge regarding"

124:The use of "outcomes" without qualification here is a bit confusing. Would be better to specify that you expect lower self-efficacy and expectations so the reader doesn't conflate scale scores with exercise outcomes.

137: "ethic" should be "ethics"

182-83: I suggest eliminating the text in parentheses.

300: "between" should be "among"

In general, you should be consistent with use of Oxford commas.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We greatly appreciate the editing feedback provided by Reviewer #3. We have made all the revisions accordingly.

Now, a few more substantive recommendations:

1. When you first mention outliers, the number is not indicated. Later, you mention removing outliers in the analysis of the SOEE. I think you provide a clear statement about all outliers removed and when. This is especially important given your relatively small sample size.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Three outliers were removed for the SOEE analysis. When deciding whether outliers should be removed, we conducted visual inspection (Q-Q plots) and formal analyses (e.g., inspected Cook’s d values, influence) to ensure that these values were truly outliers. We found that assumptions for homogeneity and distribution to run ANOVA and ANCOVA were violated. We acknowledge the relatively small sample size, but the removal of these 3 outliers were critical to ensure that assumptions for running our statistical analyses were met. On page 10 (lines 238-242), of the original manuscript, we provided insight into the statistical analyses conduct to inspect for clear outliers.

On Page 10, Line 248, we added wording to clarify that three outliers were removed for our SOEE models:

Page 10, Line 241: In the SOEE models, three outliers with high residuals and influence were removed and models were re-evaluated.

On page 14 (lines 297-300), we summarized characteristics of the three outliers. We have also uploaded a supplementary file that provides the characteristics of the three outliers from the SOEE model.

Page 14, Lines 297-300: The outliers represent three different gender expression groups, ranged in age and predominantly experienced mild to moderate ischemic strokes. A detailed description of the characteristics of three outliers are provided in supplementary file 1.

2. I see that you reported alphas for the BSRI subscales, but I don't see them for the other instruments. Reporting internal consistency for all scales is a good idea. Also, you might consider reporting McDonald's Omega, given criticisms of the restrictive assumptions of alpha. I recently had this critique myself from a reviewer and just reported both.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We greatly appreciate the reviewer sharing insight to their own experiences with reporting internal consistency. We computed internal consistency values for all scales and have reported both alpha and McDonald’s Omega values for the BSRI-12, SEPA and SOEE.

Page 10, Lines 230-231: Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds’ omega were computed to determine internal consistency of the SOEE and SSEE in our sample.

Page 11, Lines 261-263: The masculine (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, McDonald’s Omega 0.87) and feminine subscales (Cronbach’s alpha 0.89, McDonald’s Omega 0.89) of our sample had high internal consistency.

Page 12, Line 278-279: The SEPA demonstrated good internal consistency in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha 0.75, McDonald’s omega 0.76).

Page 14, Lines 293-294: The SOEE demonstrated high internal consistency in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86, McDonald’s omega 0.87).

3. You mention some literature on people with undifferentiated traits, but I think this deserves more elaboration in your discussion. You expected to find other differences as well between masculine and feminine traits, so the finding stands out. More discussion on personality correlates and health outcomes for people with undifferentiated traits would flesh out the paper--and be relevant for clinicians working with this group.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment on elaborating on the literature on individuals possessing undifferentiated gender traits. This is a severely understudied area of research, but we have added more discussion around these individuals on page 16 (lines 329-340).

Page 16, Lines 329-340: Moreover, individuals with undifferentiated gender traits are more likely to report greater levels of mobility disability [51], social anxiety [69] and depression [70] in contrast to other gender expressions. Indeed, low self-efficacy is often a precursor for social anxiety [71]. The current study adds to the growing body of evidence describing poorer psychosocial health outcomes of individuals with undifferentiated gender traits, and highlights the need to develop strategies to promote exercise self-efficacy specific to the needs of these individuals. Such strategies may include greater emphasis placed on individualized exercise programs with clinicians working 1:1 with patients, or involving other patients with similar functional abilities since individuals with undifferentiated gender expressions may not possess competitive nor dominant traits, nor focus on the perceptions and needs of others [22,42]. These strategies may not only promote exercise self-efficacy but may also minimize social anxiety.

4. Your sample size mey have limited power to find some differences. Addressing this explicitly in limitations and recommendations would add to the paper.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment. There have been no previous studies examining gender-based considerations in individuals with stroke, thus we did not have previously reported group means and variance/standard deviations for a rigorous sample size calculation. We have positioned this study as an exploratory study for which we hope future research that may benefit from our data to inform ANCOVA sample size calculations. We also emphasize the balanced cells between BSRI-12 groups as a substantial strength of our study. Nonetheless, we have added the lack of sample size calculation as a limitation of the study (Page 19, Lines 395-398).

Page 19 (Lines 395-398): Moreover, given the exploratory nature of this study and sparsity of previous literature on gender-based based considerations in this population, we did not perform a sample size calculation. Our data may inform future research to consult our group means and variances.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - Plos One.docx

pone.0299288.s002.docx (49.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Henry Hugh Bailey

8 Feb 2024

Exploring differences between gender expressions in exercise self-efficacy and outcome expectations for exercise in individuals with stroke

PONE-D-23-30818R1

Dear Dr. Tang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Henry Hugh Bailey, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Henry Hugh Bailey

4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-30818R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Henry Hugh Bailey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Characteristics of the outliers removed from the model exploring the differences in gender expression and outcome expectations for exercise.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0299288.s001.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - Plos One.docx

    pone.0299288.s002.docx (49.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available through the McMaster University Dataverse via https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/T3Y8P1 The longer format can also be found here: https://borealisdata.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/T3Y8P1.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES