Midwifery educators’ knowledge of antenatal exercises in selected Nigerian midwifery schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise during pregnancy is beneficial to both the pregnant woman and the foetus. Midwifery educators play a crucial role in ensuring that midwifery students receive the knowledge and training needed to demonstrate antenatal exercises. To ensure that their students understand and deliver adequate antenatal care, midwifery educators should be highly knowledgeable in pregnancy-related exercises. OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to determine the knowledge of midwifery educators about antenatal exercise. METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted of the knowledge about antenatal exercises by midwifery educators. A purposive total population of 54 midwifery educators from three midwifery schools in Cross River State, Nigeria, was included in the study. Questionnaires were used for data collection, and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 was used for data analysis. Ethical issues and rigour were maintained. RESULTS: The study revealed that antenatal exercises are included in the midwifery curriculum and exercise demonstration were mainly done by midwifery educators and clinical instructors. The majority (n = 34, 66.7%) of the respondents were knowledgeable about World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for exercise during pregnancy and had an average knowledge of the ideal antenatal exercises. CONCLUSION: Midwifery educators have average knowledge of the ideal antenatal exercises, which prompts the development of an exercise programme to guide midwifery training and practice. Midwifery educators should collaborate with exercise specialists to teach and demonstrate antenatal exercises.Contribution: The study highlighted the need for midwifery educators to obtain more information on antenatal exercises to adequately prepare midwifery students for evidence-based exercise care for pregnant women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".