Impact of Gestational Period and Weight on Individual, Task and Environmental Constraints on Balance in Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy coincides with sensory, perceptual and motor changes that may affect a person’s ability to perform basic activities of daily living (ADLs). Previous research suggested that weight and gestational age (trimester) may affect the way women negotiate balance related tasks, but these issues require further analysis. This study utilized Newell’s Model of Constraints as a framework to shape a questionnaire investigating an individual’s ability to perform different task-related activities across various constraints. Additionally, this study examined whether variables such as pre-pregnancy weight (under vs. over 155 pounds) and trimester (before vs. after 26 weeks) had an impact on their ability to perform different tasks requiring balance. Twenty pregnant or postpartum women (M = 29.7 years; SD = 3.6) were recruited and asked to complete a 15 item online survey exploring their abilities to complete a variety of daily tasks involving balance. In addition, open-ended questions were posed to gain qualitative insights into their experiences. A series of independent sample t-tests showed predominantly no statistical difference between the levels of the variables manipulated. At the descriptive level the women indicated that they were relatively comfortable performing the different tasks. However, the qualitative responses suggested that although they were capable, it was clear that they expended a substantial amount of energy to avoid falling, resulting in fatigue and soreness, and they experienced overall mental anguish and feelings of being overwhelmed. Overall, it was surprising that weight and gestational age, which intuitively should have impact, did not have a more pronounced effect on the women’s confidence in performing ADLs, nevertheless, qualitative responses confirmed the challenging effects of pregnancy on balance control.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".