Impact of symptoms, experiences, and perceptions of the menstrual cycle on recreational physical activity of cyclically menstruating individuals: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The menstrual cycle often presents barriers to participation in daily life activities, including physical activity (PA), which is a cornerstone of health and well-being. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and summarize the impact of symptoms, experiences, and perceptions of the menstrual cycle on recreational PA (RPA), including sports, exercise and active recreation, in the general population. METHODS: Six databases were searched for studies that investigated the impact of the menstrual cycle on PA among individuals who were cyclically menstruating, healthy, and not involved in professional sports training. RESULTS: The search yielded 3025 studies that were screened for relevance and eligibility, resulting in 25 eligible studies, which were found to be of moderate-to-high quality following a quality and risk-of-bias assessment. Thematic synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data from the selected studies, constituting 16,557 adults and 3715 adolescents, identified the impact of menstrual symptoms on the physical and psychological capability to participate in RPA, social opportunity barriers to RPA (e.g., social pressure due to the sociocultural taboo against menstruation), as well reflective (knowledge) and automatic (habit) motivation on RPA behaviours. CONCLUSION: The variability in menstrual symptoms and corresponding experiences suggested the need for an individualized approach to RPA promotion. Furthermore, this review highlighted the need to address the sociocultural taboo against menstruation, as well as improve the provision of knowledge and resources related to the menstrual cycle and RPA, in order to promote and facilitate RPA for cyclically menstruating individuals throughout the menstrual cycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".