Routine physical activity and healthy pregnant women's self reports of psychological distress: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological distress is identified as a common experience during pregnancy, and a risk factor for negative maternal and fetal health outcomes. Physical activity contributes to physical and emotional health in non-pregnant subjects. The same may be true for pregnant women. The purpose of this project is to conduct a critical examination of the literature and provide recommendations to guide nurse practitioners in working with prenatal clients. The following question was designed to guide this process: In healthy pregnant women, does physical activity at least three times weekly, as compared to remaining sedentary, decrease self reports of psychological distress? For the purpose of this project, psychological distress is defined women's self reported feelings of anxiety, depressed mood, or concerns with body image. The studies included in the literature review were obtained from a series of online database searches. Research studies, literature reviews, or clinical practice guidelines published after 1999 and written in English were included. The final yield was nine studies and three clinical practice guidelines. The evidence suggests participation in physical activity decrease over the course of pregnancy, and that women who routinely participate in physical activity during pregnancy tend to feel more positive about body image and report less feelings of anxiety and depressed mood compared to women who do not regularly engage in physical activity. Due to the limited number of studies found on this topic and the design and methodology limitations of these studies, further research is warranted. --P.ii.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".