Knowledge, attitude and practice of antenatal exercise (ANEx) among married women in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antenatal physical activity is an important physical, mental, and biochemical factor to consider. Several studies across the world have demonstrated the importance of physical activity during the antenatal period. Various factors are associated with knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to Antenatal PA. This study aimed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to Antenatal PA among married women in Afghanistan. Methods: This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Herat province. In total, 316 married women age group–16-60 were included in this study. Participants were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding Antenatal exercise (ANEx). Results: More than half (56.3%) of the participants were between 16-30 years old. Two-thirds of the participants lived in urban areas, and one-sixth of the participants were illiterate (57.9%). Less than one-third of the participants had heard of antenatal exercises (32.0%). Approximately 72% of the participants had poor knowledge, 90% had poor attitudes, and only 4% practiced antenatal exercises. Higher education, residence in urban areas, and higher monthly family income were important predictors of knowledge regarding ANEx. Similarly, a greater number of children and higher education levels are determinants of ANEx practice. Conclusion: Poor knowledge, attitudes, and practices remained the main barriers to ANEx. In the current situation of political instability and a lack of healthcare facilities, community workers can only be a way to address this issue.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".