The effect of physiotherapy intervention on the load of the foot and low back pain in pregnancy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pregnant women are at elevated risk for functional and structural changes in the movement system. Common problems are loss of foot arch height and low back pain which can have strong influence on the decrease in quality of life. AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess effect of physiotherapy intervention for preventing and treating changes in foot structure as well as low back pain during pregnancy. DESIGN: Parallel intervention study. SETTING: Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Palacký University Olomouc. METHODS: Twelve healthy pregnant women were randomly divided into the experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group performed daily exercises aimed at the foot arch. The McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Pregnancy Mobility Index were used to measure level of pain and its impact on quality of life. The Foot Posture Index, Navicular Drop test, Chippaux-Šmirák index, and a podoscope were used to evaluate load and anthropometry of the foot. The data were collected at the turn of the first and second trimester and in the third trimester of pregnancy. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the baseline and post-intervention were found only in the control group. Pain score obtained from the visual analogue scale as well as the Pregnancy Mobility Index score increased significantly (p = 0.04, p = 0.03 resp.). The Foot Posture Index results increased significantly on both the right (p = 0.04) and left (p = 0.04) lower limb. Chippaux-Šmirák index significantly increased on the right lower limb (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention prevented or reduced the changes in the foot structure and low back pain. This intervention can be recommended in primary or secondary prevention to increase quality of life in pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".