Impact of prenatal exercise on both prenatal and postnatal anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the influence of prenatal exercise on depression and anxiety during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Design Systematic review with random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. Data sources Online databases were searched up to 6 January 2017. Study eligibility criteria Studies of all designs were included (except case studies) if they were published in English, Spanish or French and contained information on the Population (pregnant women without contraindication to exercise), Intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume or type of exercise), Comparator (no exercise or different frequency, intensity, duration, volume and type of exercise) and Outcome (prenatal or postnatal depression or anxiety). Results A total of 52 studies (n=131 406) were included. ‘Moderate’ quality evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) revealed that exercise-only interventions, but not exercise+cointerventions, reduced the severity of prenatal depressive symptoms (13 RCTs, n=1076; standardised mean difference: −0.38, 95% CI −0.51 to –0.25, I 2 =10%) and the odds of prenatal depression by 67% (5 RCTs, n=683; OR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53, I 2 =0%) compared with no exercise. Prenatal exercise did not alter the odds of postpartum depression or the severity of depressive symptoms, nor anxiety or anxiety symptoms during or following pregnancy. To achieve at least a moderate effect size in the reduction of the severity of prenatal depressive symptoms, pregnant women needed to accumulate at least 644 MET-min/week of exercise (eg, 150 min of moderate intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, water aerobics, stationary cycling, resistance training). Summary/Conclusions Prenatal exercise reduced the odds and severity of prenatal depression.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".