MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can Preference Predict Adherence To The Prenatal Nutrition And Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP)?

2025· article· en· W4414226823 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Miller, Shubhika Mahakul, Edit Somogyi, Roberta Bgeginski, Taniya S. Nagpal, Harry Prapavessis, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPreferenceIntervention (counseling)Prenatal carePhysical exercisePregnancyPrenatal screeningNutrition Education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adherence is key to effective nutrition and exercise intervention programs during pregnancy to reduce the incidence of adverse health and birth outcomes. However, low program adherence is a common limitation of intervention studies that include both nutrition and exercise. Previous literature has provided evidence to suggest that preference may be linked to adherence. PURPOSE: To determine whether there is greater adherence to the previously established Nutrition and Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP; NCT02804061) if individuals’ preference of intervention strategy (nutrition and exercise presented simultaneously (Group A), exercise first followed by nutrition (Group B), or nutrition first followed by exercise (Group C)), matched the strategy in which they were randomized and if preference can predict adherence. METHODS: Participants were asked in an Exit Survey if they were randomized to the strategy they preferred and were asked to respond either "yes," "no," or "indifferent" and were then divided into these three response groups. Mean overall adherence and if they achieved 70% adherence (Yes/No) was compared for each strategy. RESULTS: Of the 78 participants, for those whose preference matched their randomized group (‘Yes’; n = 33), 21 of them adhered to >70% of the program compared to those who did not prefer their assigned group (‘No’; n = 7 out of 19 total)(χ2(1, n = 28) = 7, p = .05). When preference was not a factor ('Indifferent'; n = 26), participants randomized to Group C had the greatest adherence to the overall program (79.2 ± 15.6%) compared to those randomized to Groups A (63.9 ± 11.2%) and B (65.3 ± 11.8%; F (2, 23) = 3.552, p = 0.045). No correlation was found between preference and adherence suggesting preference is not associated with adherence; however, intervention strategy, specifically Group C, predicted adherence (R2 = .315, F (1, 76) = 8.352, p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: When starting a lifestyle intervention program during pregnancy, preference of intervention strategy may be a factor to consider. Group C demonstrated the greatest adherence regardless of preference and predicted adherence to NELIP. Therefore, exercise followed by nutrition may be the optimal strategy and should be recommended to pregnant individuals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→