Exploring Acceptability, Feasibility, and Impact of Heart Rate Variability to Provide Physical Activity Guidance Postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Women report lower levels of physical activity (PA) postpartum due to numerous barriers to engagement such as lack of time, energy, motivation, social support, and fatigue. Despite these noted barriers, PA recommendations are universal and do not allow for a tailored PA approach. Therefore, we assessed the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of individualized postpartum PA guidance. Method Participants measured heart rate variability (HRV) for 3 min every morning for 2 wk. These baseline measures were used to create individualized HRV-guided PA recommendations. The goal was to create HRV-based zones with appropriate options for PA. Participants were instructed to measure and record their HRV daily for the 8-wk intervention period and choose a daily activity that was appropriate to their reading. A mixed-methods approach of pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and qualitative interviews were used to assess the impact of the intervention on participants and whether they felt the intervention was acceptable and feasible. Results The average age of women in the study was 33 (3.7) yr, and participants were, on average, 29 (7.4) wk (7.2 (1.9) months) postpartum. Participants reported recording their daily HRV on an average of 49 of the 56 d (88%) comprising the 8-wk intervention period. Participants reported completing, on average, 27 sessions (48%) in the correct categories (i.e., the zone indicated by the daily HRV reading). From baseline to post-intervention, there were significant improvements in PA, fatigue, and sleep. Participants noted high acceptability but low feasibility of the HRV method for individualized PA guidance. Conclusions Although a relatively simple intervention (i.e., daily HRV readings) may enhance PA and other outcomes, this intervention was only somewhat feasible and left women desiring greater support and accountability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".