Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Get Active Questionnaire for Pregnancy (kwestionariusz “Badź Aktywna w Ciąży”) to support physical activity among pregnant women in Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity during pregnancy is established to derive clinically meaningful improvements in pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum health outcomes. Evidence-based pre-screening tools have been developed to support the implementation of physical activity programmes, and enhance communication between health care providers, exercise professionals and pregnant women. The Get Active Questionnaire for Pregnancy (GAQ-P) and the Health Care Provider Consultation Form for Prenatal Physical Activity (HCPCF) empower pregnant women to identify whether they require additional counselling from their obstetric health care provider in terms of physical activity. However, these tools are not available in Polish. This work details the process taken to translate the GAQ-P and HCPCF into Polish. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We followed the translation process outlined by the Translation and Cultural Adaptation International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines between August 2022 and August 2023. We formed an expert group that included representatives of the Polish Society of Sports Medicine, The Polish Society of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, practitioners, and scientists in physical activity during pregnancy. We implemented 9 of the 10 steps recommended by ISOPR in the translation process. At the Cognitive Debriefing stage, we collected opinions on the Polish version of GAQ-P and HCPCF from 70 stakeholders on the clarity and cultural appropriateness of the translation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Target users have positively evaluated the Polish version of GAQ-P and HCPCF. Thanks to the ISPOR methodology, we obtained a trustworthy, evidence-based screening tools, which can reduce the barriers for most women to be physically active 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".