Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence shows that maternal stress, pain and change in activity levels have significant effects on birth outcome and infant health. Activity restriction is associated with negative impact on maternal mental health, including increases in stress and anxiety. Activity restriction is also associated with chronic or frequent pain and a decrease in physical activity. There is no current research with women experiencing activity-restricted pregnancies from an occupational focus. The purpose of this study was to explore the occupational experiences of women who are pregnant and prescribed activity restriction. Further, this study aimed to identify areas in which occupational therapy intervention may be appropriate and effective in addressing occupational imbalances and consequently tempering negative maternal health factors. Occupational science was used as the theoretical background for the study. Two basic assumptions of occupational science guided the investigation. The first assumption is that individuals, occupations contribute to a balanced or unbalanced lifestyle. The second assumption was that occupational balance is essential for wellbeing and exists on a spectrum ranging from deprivation to overload. There were four expected outcomes. The participants were expected to have instances of occupational deprivation and of occupational overload. The women were expected to experience more negative emotions during activity restriction. This study was conducted using a phenomenological design' Extensive interviews were conducted with two women. The initial interviews were guided by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Additional interview questions and measures were added to elicit information about the participants' experiences and feelings. Fourteen common themes were identified from the interview transcripts. The themes are explained in detail. The implications for occupational science, occupational therapy and the wider health community are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".