Perceived Benefits and Barriers to Leisure-Time Physical Activity During Pregnancy in Previously Inactive and Active Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared perceived benefits and barriers to leisure-time physical activity during pregnancy among women who were insufficiently active or inactive before pregnancy. Eighty-two pregnant women completed questionnaires assessing leisure-time physical activity benefits/barriers, exercise self-efficacy, social support, depressed mood, pre-pregnancy and current physical activity and fatigue. Multivariable regression analyses identified factors associated with exercise benefits/barriers for the two pre-pregnancy leisure-time physical activity groups. Both pre-pregnancy leisure-time physical activity groups reported more benefits than barriers to exercise during pregnancy. Previously inactive women reported fewer perceived benefits and greater perceived barriers to leisure-time physical activity during pregnancy. Higher self-efficacy for exercise during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater benefits of leisure-time physical activity during pregnancy for both groups. Less family support for exercise and lower self-efficacy for exercise were significantly related to greater leisure-time physical activity barriers during pregnancy for previously inactive women. Lower self-efficacy for exercise, higher depressed mood scores, and younger age were associated with greater leisure-time physical activity barriers for active women. Findings suggest that the intensities of perceived leisure-time physical activity benefits and barriers during pregnancy differ for women, depending on their pre-pregnancy leisure-time physical activity status. Consideration of pre-pregnancy leisure-time physical activity status may thus be important when tailoring strategies to overcome barriers to promote initiation and maintenance of physical activity during pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".