MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404081745 · doi:10.2196/65611

Postpartum Remote Health Coaching Intervention for Individuals With a Hypertensive Disorder of Pregnancy: Proof-of-Concept Study

2024· article· en· W4404081745 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaclyn D Borrowman, Lucas J. Carr, Gary L. Pierce, William T. Story, Bethany Barone Gibbs, Kara M. Whitaker

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsPreprintIntervention (counseling)PregnancyCoachingProof of conceptHypertensive disorderObstetricsMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePsychotherapistPsychiatryPreeclampsiaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women in America. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) negatively impact acute and long-term cardiovascular health, with approximately 16% of all pregnancies affected. With CVD 2-4 times more likely after HDP compared to normotensive pregnancies, effective interventions to promote cardiovascular health are imperative. Objective: With postpartum physical activity (PA) interventions after HDP as an underexplored preventative strategy, we aimed in this study to assess (1) the feasibility and acceptability of a remotely delivered PA intervention for individuals with HDP 3-6 months postpartum and (2) changes in average steps per day, skills related to PA behavior, and postpartum blood pressure (BP). Methods: A remotely delivered 14-week health coaching intervention was designed based on prior formative work. The health coaching intervention called the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy Postpartum Exercise (HyPE) intervention was tested for feasibility and acceptability with a single-arm proof-of-concept study design. A total of 19 women who were 3-6 months postpartum HDP; currently inactive; 18 years of age or older; resided in Iowa; and without diabetes, kidney disease, and CVD were enrolled. Feasibility was assessed by the number of sessions attended and acceptability by self-reported satisfaction with the program. Changes in steps achieved per day were measured with an activPAL4 micro, PA behavior skills via validated surveys online, and BP was assessed remotely with a research-grade Omron Series 5 (Omron Corporation) BP monitor. Results: Participants at enrollment were on average 30.3 years of age, 4.1 months postpartum, self-identified as non-Hispanic White (14/17, 82%), in a committed relationship (16/17, 94%), and had a bachelor's degree (9/17, 53%). A total of 140 of 152 possible health coaching sessions were attended by those who started the intervention (n=19, 92%). Intervention completers (n=17) indicated they were satisfied with the program (n=17, 100%) and would recommend it to others (n=17, 100%). No significant changes in activPAL measured steps were observed from pre- to posttesting (mean 138.40, SD 129.40 steps/day; P=.75). Significant improvements were observed in PA behavior skills including planning (mean 5.35, SD 4.97 vs mean 15.06, SD 3.09; P<.001) and monitoring of PA levels (mean 7.29, SD 3.44 vs mean 13.00, SD 2.45; P<.001). No significant decreases were observed for systolic (mean -1.28, SD 3.59 mm Hg; Hedges g=-0.26; P=.16) and diastolic BP (mean -1.80, SD 5.03 mm Hg; Hedges g=-0.44; P=.12). Conclusions: While PA behaviors did not change, the intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable among this sample of at-risk women. After additional refinement, the intervention should be retested among a larger, more diverse, and less physically active sample.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→