MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407997267 · doi:10.1080/21642850.2025.2468841

Physical activity during pregnancy: key beliefs to support intervention

2025· article· en· W4407997267 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurence Simard, Stéphanie Girard, Jean Lemoyne, Véronique Babineau, Stéphanie-May Ruchat

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology and Behavioral Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Intervention (counseling)PregnancyPsychologyMedicineObstetricsComputer scienceBiologyPsychiatryGeneticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Physical activity (PA) provides maternal and fetal health benefits, but only 27.5% of Canadian pregnant women meet PA recommendations. Theory-based interventions like the theory of planned behavior (TPB) are useful in explaining what drives behavior. The first objective of this study was to validate the TPB model to predict prenatal moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), including testing of the novel interaction between intention and perceived behavioral control (PBC). The second objective was to identify which specific beliefs predict intention toward prenatal MVPA to support intervention.Method We used a prospective correlational design. Healthy pregnant women completed two electronic questionnaires: at baseline, to assess TPB constructs, and one month later, to assess MVPA practice. Structural equation modeling was conducted with Latent Moderated Structural Equations. The interaction was interpreted with the pick-a-point method and the Johnson-Neyman graphical method.Results The sample consists of 193 women (Mage = 31.2±3.6). Results indicate that prenatal MVPA at one month was marginally predicted by intention (β = 0.149; p < 0.10) and PBC (β = 0.322; p < 0.05, MVPA R2 = 20%), but when their interaction was added to the model, MVPA R2 increased to 44%. Specifically, the relationship between intention and MVPA is stronger when PBC is high (0.5 standard deviation over the mean). In the full model including the interaction, attitude (β = 0.59; p < 0.001), subjective norm (β = 0.20; p < 0.01) and PBC (β = 0.26; p < 0.05) all made a significant contribution to predicting MVPA intention (R2 = 88%). Finally, the following beliefs displayed significant indirect paths toward the intention of being physically active: behavioral beliefs: unlikely to be more tired and likely feel better mentally; normative beliefs: approval from friends and from mother/father; and control beliefs: being tired and missing social support.Conclusion Interventions aiming to promote regular MVPA during pregnancy should prioritized the six significant beliefs identified to significantly predict intention toward prenatal MVPA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.430 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Psychology and Behavioral MedicineSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207