Midwives’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Professional Practices Regarding Prenatal Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Prenatal physical activity (PA) offers numerous health benefits for both the mother and her child, yet few pregnant women are sufficiently active enough to obtain these benefits. Midwives play an important role in promoting prenatal PA. However, little is known about the content of the information they share with their clients regarding prenatal PA, how they communicate it, and the personal factors that might influence their counseling. In the context of prenatal PA guidance, the aim of this study was to describe the knowledge, attitudes, professional practices, and communication methods used by midwives. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted between February and June 2024 among midwives working in the Province of Quebec. An electronic questionnaire including both closed (quantitative data) and open-ended (qualitative data) questions was developed. Results: Fifty midwives were included in the analysis. Only 28 (56%) reported being aware of the latest Canadian guidelines for PA throughout pregnancy. The recommendations provided varied in terms of content and accuracy but were often conservative (i.e., not focused on increasing PA). Forty-five (90%) mentioned providing information on PA to their pregnant client, and eighty-four (84%) said they used bidirectional communication to share this information. The vast majority (84%) did not consider their counseling to be optimal, primarily due to a lack of training and knowledge. Conclusions: Our finding allowed us to gain a better understanding of current midwifery knowledge, attitudes, and professional practices regarding prenatal PA and to initiate a reflection on how to improve their knowledge, skills, and confidence in guiding their client toward prenatal PA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".