Affective Response to Exercise and Affective Judgments as Predictors of Physical Activity Intention and Behavior among New Mothers in their first 6-Months Postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the predictors of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during early postpartum is important to improve promotion efforts. Affect-related constructs are key predictors of MVPA but have limited research in mothers during the postpartum period. PURPOSE: To examine two affect-related constructs (affective response to exercise and affective judgments) as predictors of MVPA intention and behavior across three months, among a sample of new mothers. METHODS: Participants were 105 mothers (M age = 30.64 years; SD = 3.93) who completed measures during postpartum at 2-months post-birth of their first child. The affective response to exercise (assessed at baseline [2-months postpartum] during a submaximal treadmill test), affective judgments and intention (baseline, 6-weeks after baseline), and MVPA (baseline, 6- and 12-weeks after baseline) were assessed via self-report. RESULTS: Path analysis, using ordinary least squares regression, showed that the affective response during exercise was a significant predictor of intention (baseline, 6-weeks), as well as change in intention from baseline to 6-weeks. By contrast, affective judgments predicted intention at 6-weeks, but not at baseline or in the change model. Past MVPA did not moderate these findings, although the affective response during exercise also had a significant indirect effect on MVPA through intention at 6-weeks and 12-weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting women's affective response during exercise may be important during postpartum, perhaps through self-paced physical activity guidance. Affective judgments may not be predictive of MVPA, in part due to unanticipated changes during early postpartum leading to inaccurate expectations of the physical activity experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".