Examining Exercise-Related Cognitive Errors and Social Support for Physical Activity in Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worry about fetal health and lack of social support are commonly reported barriers to physical activity during pregnancy. Exercise-related cognitive errors (ECEs; eg, modifiable cognitions that cause individuals to catastrophize barriers to exercise) may have an independent association with physical activity and influence the relationship between social support and worry with physical activity. This study examined whether maternal-related worry, social support (from family and friends), ECEs, and their interactions differentiated the physical activity of pregnant individuals at 3 different levels: (1) active and meeting the prenatal physical activity guidelines, (2) active but not meeting the guidelines, and (3) inactive. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 360 North American pregnant participants (mean age = 27.96 [6.41], mean gestational age = 21.95 [7.49] wk). Measures of prenatal physical activity, maternal-related worry, social support from friends and from family, and ECEs were completed online. RESULTS: Social support from friends was associated with lower odds of being inactive (vs meeting guidelines) and being active but not meeting guidelines (vs meeting guidelines) when ECEs were high (odds ratio = 0.25, z = -3.52, P < .001 and 0.36, z = -2.85, P < .01) or moderate (odds ratio = 0.37, z = -3.29, P < .001 and 0.54, z = -2.28, P < .05), but not low. Maternal worry was associated with higher odds of being active but not meeting guidelines (vs meeting guidelines) when ECEs were low (odds ratio = 1.70, z = 2.03, P < .05), but not moderate or high. CONCLUSION: The relationship between social support from friends and maternal worry with physical activity level may differ based on a pregnant individual's level of ECE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".