The Perceived Role and Influencers of Physical Activity Among Pregnant Women From Low Socioeconomic Status Communities in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facility-based and context-specific interventions to promote physical activity (PA) among pregnant women from economically underprivileged communities remain sparse and undocumented in South Africa. This study aimed to generate information about pregnant women's views and experiences of PA during pregnancy, which will later be used to inform the development of a PA-based intervention targeting this group. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used and framed on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Five focus group discussions were conducted at a Community Health Centre in Cape Town, each comprising a stratified random sample of between 8 and 6 pregnant women living in eight low socioeconomic status communities close to the facility. The participants included primi- and multigravida black and mixed racial ancestry women at different stages of pregnancy. Data were analyzed using a Framework approach. RESULTS: PA was considered important for self and the baby for most participants. However, they reported a number of barriers for translating intentions into action including the lack of supportive environment, fear of hurting oneself and the growing baby, lack of time due to work and family responsibilities, and not knowing which and how much PA is safe to do. Some of the incentives to engage in PA included establishing community-based group exercise clubs, initiating antenatal PA education and PA sessions during antenatal visits. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings the need for an intervention to promote PA in pregnancy is evident. Such an intervention should, however, aim at addressing barriers reported in this study, particularly those related to the behavioral context.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".