Outcomes of Exercise Training Following the Use of a Birthing Ball During Pregnancy and Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fournier, D, Feeney, G, and Mathieu, M-E. Outcomes of exercise training following the use of a birthing ball during pregnancy and delivery. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1941-1947, 2017- Using a birthing ball (BB) is an exercise form that is growing in popularity. Improved delivery outcomes have been recently reported with as little a 6-8 hours of training per week; however, little is known regarding lower and higher training levels. The aim of this study was to document whether more time spent training with a BB resulted in improved delivery outcomes for the mother and the newborn. This quasi-experimental study was conducted with a sample of women who participated in 1 to 28 supervised exercise classes during pregnancy according to the Ballon Forme program offered in nonclinical settings (http://ballonforme.com), with the option of completing the supervised BB exercises performed at home. Thirty women who gave birth naturally were included in the study. Mean BB training time was 22.3 hours (SD = 16.6 hours). A greater BB training time was significantly associated with shorter labor duration (r = -0.408; p = 0.031) and specific stages of labor (stage 1 [dilatation/active stage] [r = -0.372; p = 0.043] and stage 2 [expulsion] [r = -0.415; p = 0.028]). Increased participation in BB supervised classes was more closely associated with quicker deliveries than those of home based BB exercises. No associations between training time and adverse effects of labor parameters or the baby's health were noted. Greater involvement in BB training seems to lead to quicker deliveries than lower levels of involvement; it also has the benefit of supervised practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".