Navigating the ‘new normal’: what guidelines exist for postpartum return to physical activity and sport? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women are often advised to return to activity (RTA) as early as 6 weeks postpartum, despite undergoing significant physical, physiological and psychological changes. Our objective was to examine existing evidence and clinical practice guidelines to navigate a safe and successful RTA or return to sport (RTS) postpartum. METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus and included any secondary studies with recommendations or guidelines for RTA or RTS postpartum. Grey literature and primary sources were excluded. Four reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review for eligibility, with conflicts resolved by a third-party reviewer. One reviewer extracted data, which was cross-referenced by another reviewer. RESULTS: 5851 studies were screened, and 33 were included in this scoping review. Most studies stated that RTS postpartum can begin once 'medically safe', around 6 weeks postpartum, but this term was generally left undefined. In addition, most studies recommended engaging in 150 min of moderate-vigorous physical activity per week after 6 weeks postpartum, but the type of exercise recommended was often non-specific. CONCLUSION: A lack of consistent, evidence-based guidelines exist for RTA or RTS postpartum. Multiple evidence gaps require additional research to inform patient and activity specific guidelines for a safe and successful RTA or RTS postpartum.
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 | 0.025 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".