MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414500803 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331913

Effects of digital health counseling and behavioral interventions on weight management during pregnancy and postpartum: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2025· review· en· W4414500803 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Khademioore, Alexandra M. Palumbo, Ahmad Sofi‐Mahmudi, Taylor Incze, Kiara Pannozzo, Nicolette Christodoulakis, Rohan D’Souza, Gian Paolo Morgano, Nancy Santesso, Laura N. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPregnancyWeight managementDigital healthMEDLINEWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of digital health counseling or behavioral weight management interventions for preventing excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) among pregnant individuals of all body mass index (BMI) categories, compared to routine care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations/Theses, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to February 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) wherein pregnant women received counseling or behavioral interventions through digital health compared to routine care. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data from eligible RCTs. Data were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses. We applied the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the magnitude and certainty of the effects. RESULTS: We included 18 trials. Moderate certainty evidence showed 0.78 kg lower GWG in the weight management digital health intervention group, compared with routine care (95% CI: -1.40 to -0.16 kg). This reduction was higher in individuals with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Digital health interventions likely reduce the risk of excessive GWG (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.95) and may result in little to no difference in the rate of cesarean birth (CB) (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.48). Low-certainty evidence suggested that digital health weight management interventions may reduce the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.12), pre-eclampsia (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.33), and preterm birth (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.28). High-certainty evidence showed that digital health weight management interventions have little to no effect on birthweight (MD = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Digital health interventions are effective in reducing GWG and excessive GWG based on BMI. Additionally, evidence suggests that these interventions may lower the risk of GDM, pre-eclampsia, and preterm birth. However, their impact on birthweight, GWG across all BMI categories, and the risk of CB is trivial.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.033
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→