The Experience of Pregnancy-Related Lumbopelvic Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain is common and can impact quality of life. Purpose. To synthesize existing qualitative research on people's experiences of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in pregnancy and during the postpartum period. Method. A keyword search of four electronic databases between 2000 and 2022 was completed. Included studies were appraised and synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach. Findings. Twenty-three studies were included. Analysis identified four core themes: (1) uncertainties about pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, (2) struggles to attain achieve treatment and pain management, (3) profound activity consequences, and (4) emotional wellbeing, relationship, and identity impacts of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain. Implications. The occupational therapy role with this population has not to our knowledge yet been described. Given the centrality of occupational disruption to the experience of this population we argue that developing and evaluating occupational therapy interventions to address functional, work, parenting and wellbeing outcomes for this population is warranted and should be prioritized.
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 | 0.048 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".