Impact of postpartum physical activity on maternal depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the influence of postpartum exercise on maternal depression and anxiety. Design Systematic review with random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. Data sources Online databases up to 12 January 2024, reference lists, recommended studies and hand searches. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised interventions of any publication date or language were included if they contained information on the Population (postpartum people), Intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume, type, or mode of delivery of exercise), Comparator (no exercise or different exercise measures), and Outcome (postpartum depression, anxiety prevalence, and/or symptom severity). Results A total of 35 studies (n=4072) were included. Moderate certainty evidence from RCTs showed that exercise-only interventions reduced the severity of postpartum depressive symptoms (19 RCTs, n=1778, SMD: −0.52, 95% CI −0.80 to –0.24, I2=86%, moderate effect size) and anxiety symptoms (2 RCTs, n=513, SMD: −0.25, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.08, I2=0%, small effect size), and the odds of postpartum depression by 45% (4 RCTs, n=303 OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95, I2=0%) compared with no exercise. No included studies assessed the impact of postpartum exercise on the odds of postpartum anxiety. To achieve at least a moderate reduction in the severity of postpartum depressive symptoms, postpartum individuals needed to accumulate at least 350 MET-min/week of exercise (eg, 80 min of moderate intensity exercise such as brisk walking, water aerobics, stationary cycling or resistance training). Conclusions Postpartum exercise reduced the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms and the odds of postpartum depression.
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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".