MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessing Health Professionals Guidance Regarding Physical Activity In Pregnant Women

2024· article· en· W4402556353 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivier Chenette-Stewart, Marie-Soleil Durand, Suzanne Laberge, Julie Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth professionalsPhysical activityPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While most pregnancies are uneventful, an estimated 15% of pregnant women globally still develop complications that seriously affect maternal and fetal health. Over the past decades, these gestational complications have risen in association with advanced maternal age and/or obesity. Although physical activity (PA) during pregnancy has been shown to have significant health benefits for the mother and her fetus, including reduced risk of gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders, very few women exercise as recommended by the national guidelines. Moreover, it has been reported that medical staff rarely discuss PA with their patients during prenatal visits. PURPOSE: Given the positive impact that health professionals can have on lifestyle changes, the first objective of this project is to document the information they give to pregnant women regarding the practice of PA during their pregnancy. The second objective is to evaluate the PA level of pregnant women during their pregnancy. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered using an electronic tablet to pregnant women at their first prenatal visit at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM). This questionnaire is adapted from the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ), a semi-quantitative questionnaire that measures PA type, intensity, frequency and duration during pregnancy, to which questions regarding the prenatal visits and socio-demographic questions have been added (PPAQ+). RESULTS: Thus far, more than 100 women followed at the CHUM have been recruited. Our preliminary results suggest that around 60% of women do not discuss PA with their health professionals. Of the women who did, close to 35% were not explained the benefits of being active, and almost 75% did not receive any specific and/or personal recommendations about PA practice. Regarding the PA level of our participants, a mean energy expenditure of around 260 MET.h/week was calculated. CONCLUSION: PA is not systematically discussed during the first prenatal visit and, when health professionals touch on the subject, they often do not give any recommendations. It is imperative to improve clinical practice regarding PA recommendations as this could lead to better pregnancy outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→