MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409645058 · doi:10.1037/hea0001511

A systematic review of postpartum physical activity intervention mediators.

2025· review· en· W4409645058 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Hollman, Sophie Tran, Margie H. Davenport, Sam Liu, Wuyou Sui, Aleah Ross, Erla Hjartar, Ryan E. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsycINFOPsychologyPhysical activityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMEDLINEPsychotherapistPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with many health benefits; however, up to 94% of postpartum individuals do not meet PA guidelines. Understanding mediators of postpartum PA behavior change interventions is essential to increase PA participation following childbirth. The purpose of this review was to identify putative mediators of postpartum PA interventions. METHOD: Six databases were searched for primary or gray literature from inception until December 2023. Intervention studies of any language were included if they contained (a) individuals ≤ 12 months postpartum, (b) a PA intervention, (c) a no exercise or different exercise comparator, and (d) a change in PA and putative mediator outcome that could be classified with the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Results were categorized by mediation path, mediator TDF domain, and PA outcome. RESULTS: = .12) of postpartum PA interventions on PA. CONCLUSION: Future postpartum PA interventions should integrate components that increase outcomes under the domains of beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences. Further research that tests nonconscious mediators (e.g., PA habit, identity) is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.471 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207