Be Healthy in Pregnancy: Exploring factors that impact pregnant women's nutrition and exercise behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excess gestational weight gain is associated with short- and long-term pregnancy complications. Although a healthy diet and physical activity during pregnancy are recommended and shown to reduce the risk of complications and improve outcomes, adherence to these recommendations is low. The aims of this study were to explore women's view of nutrition and physical activity during pregnancy and to describe barriers and facilitators experienced in implementing physical activity and nutrition recommendations. In a substudy of the Be Healthy in Pregnancy randomized trial, 20 semistructured focus groups were conducted with 66 women randomized to the control group when they were between 16 and 24 weeks gestation. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and thematically analysed. The results indicate that women felt motivated to be healthy for their baby, but competing priorities may take precedence. Participants described limited knowledge and access to information on safe physical activity in pregnancy and lacked the skills needed to operationalize both physical activity and dietary recommendations. Women's behaviours regarding diet and physical activity in pregnancy were highly influenced by their own and their peers' beliefs and values regarding how weight gain impacted their health during pregnancy. Pregnancy symptoms beyond women's control such as fatigue and nausea made physical activity and healthy eating more challenging. Counselling from care providers about nutrition and physical activity was perceived as minimal and ineffective. Future interventions should address improving counselling strategies and address individual's beliefs around nutrition and activity in pregnancy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".