The Impact of Sedentary Behavior After Childbirth on Postpartum Lumbopelvic Pain Prolongation: A Follow-Up Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A substantial number of women have postpartum lumbopelvic pain (LBPP). Additionally, many postpartum women stay for long inactivity. Therefore, we examined the impact of sedentary behavior on persistent postpartum LBPP and the difference in this impact due to parity. Materials and Methods: This cohort study followed up women who had reported LBPP at 4 months postpartum and divided them into the presence or absence of LBPP at 10 months postpartum. Sedentary time and physical activity were assessed at 4 months postpartum using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate persistent LBPP odds ratios (ORs) according to sedentary times, followed by stratification analysis by parity. The institutional review board approval was obtained. Results: A total of 182 women (32.1 ± 5.1 years old) were included for analysis and 112 (61.5%) participants had persistent LBPP at 10 months postpartum. Those with persistent LBPP at 10 months postpartum had increased sedentary time (5.0 [3.0–7.0] hours vs. 3.5 [2.0–6.0] hours, p = 0.05) at 4 months compared with those without LBPP. Even after adjusting for confounding factors, longer sedentary time at 4 months postpartum affected persistent LBPP at 10 months postpartum in primiparas (adjusted OR [95% confidence interval, CI] = 1.28 [1.05–1.55]), but longer sedentary time at 4 months postpartum did not affect persistent LBPP at 10 months postpartum in multiparas (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 0.96 [0.86–1.07]). Conclusion: Sedentary behavior after childbirth is associated with persistent postpartum LBPP in primiparas, but not multiparas. Reducing sedentary time might be beneficial to prevent persistent postpartum LBPP for primiparas.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".