Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2023 Jan 24;23(1):59.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05371-5.

Adherence to recommended physical activity restrictions due to threatened preterm delivery - a descriptive multi-center study

Jane M Bendix  1   2 , Mette G Backhausen  3 , Hanne K Hegaard  4   5   6 , Ane Lilleoere Rom  4   6   7 , Stig Molsted  8   5 , Ellen C L Lokkegaard  9   5
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Adherence to recommended physical activity restrictions due to threatened preterm delivery - a descriptive multi-center study

Jane M Bendix et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: Threatened preterm delivery is a serious obstetrical complication and has for decades been prescribed physical activity restrictions (AR). Adherence to the recommended level of physical AR is however unknown. This study aimed to assess the objectively measured different physical positions and activities of pregnant women recommended AR due to threatened preterm delivery complications, compared to a reference group of uncomplicated pregnant women without restrictions, and to explore if admission status influenced adherence to AR.

Methods: A Danish descriptive, clinical multi-center study included singleton pregnancies between 22-33 gestational weeks admitted to an antenatal ward or during midwife consultations either prescribed AR due to threatened preterm delivery or uncomplicated controls without restrictions. For seven days participants wore two tri-axial accelerometric SENS® monitors. Accelerometric data included time spent in five different positions, activities, and step counts. At inclusion demographic and obstetric information was collected.

Results: Seventy-two pregnant women participated; 31% were prescribed strict AR, 15% moderate, 3% light, 8% unspecified, and 43% had no AR. Strict AR participants rested in the supine/lateral position for 17.7 median hours/day (range:9.6-24.0); sat upright 4.9 h/day (0.11-11.7); took 1,520steps/day (20-5,482), and 64% were inpatients. Moderate AR participants rested in the supine/lateral position for 15.1 h/day (11.5-21.6); sat upright 5.6 h/day (2.0-9.3); took 3,310steps/day (467-6,968), and 64% were outpatients. Participants with no AR rested 10.5 h/day (6.3-15.4) in supine/lateral position; sat upright 7.6 h/day (0.1-11.4) and took 9,235steps/day (3,225-20,818). Compared to no restrictions, participants with strict or moderate AR spent significant more time in physical resting positions and took significant fewer mean steps. Among strict AR admission status did not alter time spent in the physical positions, nor the step count.

Conclusions: Overall, participants adhered highly to the recommended AR. However, discriminating between strict and moderate AR recommendations did not alter how physical resting positions and activities were carried out. The admission status did not influence how participants adhered to strict AR.

Keywords: Accelerometric data; Activity restrictions; Adherence; Admission status; Physical positions/movements; Threatened preterm delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors state explicitly that they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the study inclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Individual performance of different daily physical positions/activities according to level of recommended activity restriction
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Physical positions/activities according to admission status
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bendix J. Activity restriction and hospitalisation in threatened preterm delivery. PhD Thesis. University of Copenhagen; 2015.
    1. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–2172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cobo T, Kacerovsky M, Jacobsson B. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstst. 2020;150(1):17–23. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13184. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Iams JD, Romero R, Culhane JF, Goldenberg RL. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):164–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60108-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sprague AE. The evolution of bed rest as a clinical intervention. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004;33(5):542–549. doi: 10.1177/0884217504268523. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types