Physical Activity and Self-Perception of Mental and Physical Quality of Life during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-perception of health status (quality of life) is considered one of the best indicators of health and well-being. However, during pregnancy, it could be impacted not only by physiological and anatomical changes, but by poor lifestyle habits like high sedentary behaviour or bad nutrition. This study assesses the effects of physical activity RCT interventions during pregnancy on both mental and physical components of quality of life. A systematic review and two meta-analyses were performed (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022370467). Of the 207 articles captured both in English and Spanish, seven articles were deemed eligible for inclusion. The two analyses performed found that physically active pregnant women had better scores of mental self-perception of quality of life (z = 2.08, p = 0.04; SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.67, I2 = 76%, Pheterogeneity = 0.0004) and in physical self-perceived health status (z = 2.19, p = 0.03; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.63, I2 = 71%, Pheterogeneity = 0.002) compared to control group pregnant women. Physical activity interventions could potentially increase mental and physical self-perception of quality of life during 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".