MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398133211 · doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2024.01.006

Exploring the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Benefits of the Mom Movement Intervention (MOMmi)

2024· article· en· W4398133211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iris Lesser, Amanda Wurz, Corliss Bean, Gillian L. Hatfield

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing for Women s Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Postpartum periodPsychologyMedicineNursingPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility, acceptability, and potential benefits associated with a mind-body intervention and varied delivery styles among women during the postpartum period. DESIGN: Mixed-methods feasibility study. SETTING: Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three women (93% White), with an average age of 32.1 (SD = 2.9) years, who had given birth within the last 6 months. METHODS: Participants were randomized to three physical activity groups. Validated questionnaires were administered before and after the 12-week intervention. Attendance and feasibility metrics and qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted to assess the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention and trial were partially feasible, and retention to the intervention was high; however, adherence as assessed by attendance was lower than expected. There was high acceptability among those in the group-based, in-person intervention. There was moderate acceptability among those in the individual, home-based asynchronous program. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the necessity of better understanding what is desired by this population or simply providing more options to participants so that we can tailor physical activity to their needs and provide the necessary support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing for Women s HealthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207