Developmental trajectories of health‐promoting behaviours among pregnant women: A longitudinal study

Abstract

Aims and objectives:The aim of this study is to estimate differences in healthpromoting behaviour levels throughout the pregnancy trimesters, to identify distinct patterns of health-promoting behaviour trajectories during pregnancy and to evaluate predictors of these trajectory group memberships.Background: Promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours during pregnancy could decrease devastating outcomes for the mother and foetus. However, there is currently limited insight into the dynamics of health-promoting behaviours during pregnancy.Design: An observational longitudinal study.Methods: 158 pregnant women were recruited from June 2020 to June 2021 in Qingdao, China. The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile was used to assess healthpromoting behaviours. Latent growth model was performed to compare healthpromoting behaviours at different time points. Group-based trajectory model was applied to identify health-promoting behaviour trajectories. Multinomial logistic regression was adopted to determine the predictors of trajectory group memberships. We used the STROBE checklist to report this study. Results:The entire sample of pregnant women experienced a significant increase in health-promoting behaviours during pregnancy. Three trajectories were identified including a 'low-increase behaviour trajectory (20.1% of sample)', a 'moderate-increase behaviour trajectory (58.0% of sample)' and a 'stable then increased behaviour trajectory (21.9% of sample)'. Low maternal sense of coherence, lack of pre-pregnancy exercise habit, artificial insemination and low monthly family income were significantly associated with the low-increase behaviour trajectory. High self-efficacy and prepregnancy exercise habit were significantly associated with the stable then increased behaviour trajectory. Conclusions:Pregnant women exhibit different health-promoting behaviours throughout the pregnancy trimesters. Meanwhile, three trajectories were identified among pregnant women. Thus, more attentions should be paid on early identification and targeted intervention in a future study.

Assisted reproductive technology and physical activity among Chinese pregnant women at high risk for gestational diabetes mellitus in early pregnancy: A cross‐sectional study

“…A potential explanation for the lower levels of physical activity in women who use ART could be that they have significantly lower self‐efficacy compared to women who conceive naturally, as self‐efficacy was one of the predictors of physical activity in pregnant women who used ART in the present study. Higher levels of physical activity self‐efficacy were associated with more physical activity engagement (Yu et al, 2023). This correlation is supported by previous research (Cramp & Bray, 2009) and Bandura's theory, which posits that individuals with high self‐efficacy in physical activity are more willing to exert effort to overcome difficulties (Bandura, 1977).…”

“…According to Green (1991), the minimum required sample size for multiple linear regression can be estimated using the formula n > 50 + 8 m , where m is the number of predictors. Based on the literature review, the predictors of physical activity were assumed to be self‐efficacy (Yu et al, 2023), knowledge (McKeough et al, 2022), social support (Grenier et al, 2021), age (Jones et al, 2021), education (Jones et al, 2021), occupation (Jones et al, 2021), monthly household income (Janakiraman et al, 2021), attendance at antenatal physical activity classes (Ahmadi et al, 2021), pre‐pregnancy physical activity habits (Janakiraman et al, 2021), and parity (Alaglan et al, 2020). Thus, in the present study, m is 10.…”

Sense of coherence in pregnancy: a systematic review of the literature.

“…found positive correlations (p < 0.05) with measures of wellbeing and social support and negative correlation (p < 0.05) with depression.Einav et al [36] reported correlations between Relationship Satisfaction and Maternal Satisfaction that were statistically signi cant (i.e., p < .001) [31,34,35,37,40,. 69,70,73,75] provided no explicit measures of SOC, the majority of the prospective studies (n = 19; 38.8%) (see Table4) provided multiple measures of SOC[33,41,43, 46, 48,49,55,57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,71,74, 76, 78].…”

“…Of these 18 studies, four studies [63, 64, 66, 69] indicated SOC measures in the 2nd trimester and two studies[60,75] speci ed SOC measures in the 3rd trimester. One study[31] completed questionnaires at 12, 24 and 36 weeks of gestation while one study[34] had responders completing the questionnaire at 39th week of gestation and 2 months postpartum. One study speci ed the 2nd and 3rd trimester as when the questionnaires were completed.…”

“…The remaining studies (n = 11; 22%)[32, 36, 38, 48,53,54,57,59, 61,72, 78] were non-speci c about the weeks of gestation or trimester when SOC was measured. Thirteen of the 18 studies were prospective cohorts[31,34, 48,55,57, 60, 63, 64, 66, 69,72,75, 78] while the remaining ve[36, 38,53,59, 61] were crosssectional in study design. Of the studies specifying a trimester of pregnancy when SOC was measured, four studies[32,37,50,79] involved subjects in their second and third trimesters while two studies[65, 76] involved pregnant responders at the rst and third trimester.…”