CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

Measuring physical activity during pregnancy

Open access
Harrison, Cheryce L, Thompson, Russell G, Teede, Helena J, Lombard, Catherine B·2011·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-8-19PMC PMC3069935
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Currently, little is known about physical activity patterns in pregnancy with prior estimates predominantly based on subjective assessment measures that are prone to error. Given the increasing obesity rates and the importance of physical activity in pregnancy, we evaluated the relationship and agreement between subjective and objective physical activity assessment tools to inform researchers and clinicians on optimal assessment of physical activity in pregnancy. Methods: 48 pregnant women between 26-28 weeks gestation were recruited. The Yamax pedometer and Actigraph accelerometer were worn for 5-7 days under free living conditions and thereafter the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was completed. IPAQ and pedometer estimates of activity were compared to the more robust and accurate accelerometer data. Results: Of 48 women recruited, 30 women completed the study (mean age: 33.6 ± 4.7 years; mean BMI: 31.2 ± 5.1 kg/m 2) and 18 were excluded (failure to wear [n = 8] and incomplete data [n = 10]). The accelerometer and pedometer correlated significantly on estimation of daily steps (ρ = 0.69, p < 0.01) and had good absolute agreement with low systematic error (mean difference: 505 ± 1498 steps/day). Accelerometer and IPAQ estimates of total, light and moderate Metabolic Equivalent minutes/day (MET min-1 day-1) were not significantly correlated and there was poor absolute agreement. Relative to the accelerometer, the IPAQ under predicted daily total METs (105.76 ± 259.13 min-1 day-1) and light METs (255.55 ± 128.41 min-1 day-1) and over predicted moderate METs (-112.25 ± 166.41 min-1 day-1). Conclusion: Compared with the accelerometer, the pedometer appears to provide a reliable estimate of physical activity in pregnancy, whereas the subjective IPAQ measure performed less accurately in this setting. Future research measuring activity in pregnancy should optimally encompass objective measures of physical activity. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number: ACTRN12608000233325. Registered 7/5/2008.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1479-5868-8-19

Cites

50 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 CONSORT criteria for included participants.
Figure 1 CONSORT criteria for included participants.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Bland-Altman plots of physical activity measurement agreement between the Actigraph accelerometer and pedometer steps (A); Actigraph accelerometer and IPAQ mean daily total MET min-1 (B); light MET min-1 (C) and moderate MET min-1 (D).
Figure 2 Bland-Altman plots of physical activity measurement agreement between the Actigraph accelerometer and pedometer steps (A); Actigraph accelerometer and IPAQ mean daily total MET min-1 (B); light MET min-1 (C) and moderate MET min-1 (D).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–139 of 139

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Harrison, C. L., Thompson, R. G., Teede, H. J., & Lombard, C. B.
Affiliations
  • Jean Hailes (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Lombard, Catherine B
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-03-21
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1479-5868-8-19
PMC
PMC3069935
OpenAlex
W2114726529
Cited by
139
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Jack Brockhoff Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
exercise during pregnancy, accelerometer, pedometers, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, daily step count, metabolic equivalent minutes, gestational obesity
MeSH terms
Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Motor Activity, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Actigraphy, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review