Bethany Barone Gibbs1, Melissa A Jones2, Kara M Whitaker3, Sharon Taverno Ross4, Kelliann K Davis5. 1. Healtth and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States;, Email: bbarone@pitt.edu. 2. Health and Human Physiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 3. Health and Human Physiology University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 4. Health and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 5. Kelliann K. Davis, Health and Human Development, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop, validate, and describe findings from an instrument to measure barriers, attitudes, and outcome expectations of sitting less in pregnant women. METHODS: This validation (sub-study 1) and descriptive study (sub-study 2) evaluated a new questionnaire measuring sedentary time in pregnant women (N=131) in each trimester. RESULTS: In sub-study 1, construct validity was supported by associations between device-measured sedentary time and questionnaire scores. An optimized questionnaire removed infrequently reported and non-correlated items. The original and optimized questionnaires with scoring instructions are provided. In sub-study 2, physical symptoms and work were most commonly reported as major reasons for sitting in pregnancy, followed by leisure, family, and social activities. Some women reported limiting sitting due to boredom/restlessness, to improve energy or health, and to control weight. In the third trimester, some women reported sitting more/less due to pain and encouragement from family, friends, and co-workers. Few women reported household chores or pregnancy risks as reasons to sit, felt sitting was healthy or necessary during pregnancy, or were encouraged to sit by healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The developed questionnaire demonstrated validity and identified barriers to and expectations of sitting less during pregnancy. Prenatal interventions to reduce sitting should address general and pregnancy-specific barriers.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop, validate, and describe findings from an instrument to measure barriers, attitudes, and outcome expectations of sitting less in pregnant women. METHODS: This validation (sub-study 1) and descriptive study (sub-study 2) evaluated a new questionnaire measuring sedentary time in pregnant women (N=131) in each trimester. RESULTS: In sub-study 1, construct validity was supported by associations between device-measured sedentary time and questionnaire scores. An optimized questionnaire removed infrequently reported and non-correlated items. The original and optimized questionnaires with scoring instructions are provided. In sub-study 2, physical symptoms and work were most commonly reported as major reasons for sitting in pregnancy, followed by leisure, family, and social activities. Some women reported limiting sitting due to boredom/restlessness, to improve energy or health, and to control weight. In the third trimester, some women reported sitting more/less due to pain and encouragement from family, friends, and co-workers. Few women reported household chores or pregnancy risks as reasons to sit, felt sitting was healthy or necessary during pregnancy, or were encouraged to sit by healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The developed questionnaire demonstrated validity and identified barriers to and expectations of sitting less during pregnancy. Prenatal interventions to reduce sitting should address general and pregnancy-specific barriers.
Authors: Neville Owen; Takemi Sugiyama; Elizabeth E Eakin; Paul A Gardiner; Mark S Tremblay; James F Sallis Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: N Padmapriya; Liang Shen; Shu-E Soh; Zhe Shen; Kenneth Kwek; Keith M Godfrey; Peter D Gluckman; Yap-Seng Chong; Seang-Mei Saw; Falk Müller-Riemenschneider Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2015-11
Authors: Mark S Tremblay; Salomé Aubert; Joel D Barnes; Travis J Saunders; Valerie Carson; Amy E Latimer-Cheung; Sebastien F M Chastin; Teatske M Altenburg; Mai J M Chinapaw Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Caterina Fazzi; David H Saunders; Kathryn Linton; Jane E Norman; Rebecca M Reynolds Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: G H Rawlings; R K Williams; D J Clarke; C English; C Fitzsimons; I Holloway; R Lawton; G Mead; A Patel; A Forster Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Danielle Symons Downs; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Kelly R Evenson; Jenn Leiferman; SeonAe Yeo Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Bethany Barone Gibbs; Joshua L Paley; Melissa A Jones; Kara M Whitaker; Christopher P Connolly; Janet M Catov Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 3.007