Next Article in Journal
Mid-Infrared Emissivity Retrieval from Nighttime Sentinel-3 SLSTR Images Combining Split-Window Algorithms and the Radiance Transfer Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Application of Intersectionality as a Path toward Equity in Perinatal Health: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Can Population Mobility Make Cities More Resilient? Evidence from the Analysis of Baidu Migration Big Data in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Navigating Pregnancy and the Healthcare System during COVID-19: A Qualitative Study with Perinatal Women of Color
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph20010034
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Maternal Well-Being and Stage of Behaviour Change during Pregnancy: A Secondary Analysis of the PEARS Randomised Controlled Trial

by
Doireann Roche
1,*,
Anthony Rafferty
1,
Sinead Holden
2,
Sarah Louise Killeen
1,
Maria Kennelly
1 and
Fionnuala M. McAuliffe
1
1
UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
2
UCD School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010034
Submission received: 5 September 2022 / Revised: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prenatal Wellbeing and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We aimed to determine whether early pregnancy well-being was associated with the stage of behaviour change during an antenatal lifestyle intervention using a secondary analysis of data from the Pregnancy Exercise and Nutrition Research Study (PEARS). Pregnant women (n = 277) with well-being data in early pregnancy were included. Maternal well-being was measured using the World Health Organisation Five-Item Well-Being Index. The intervention consisted of a mobile health (mHealth) phone application, supported by antenatal education and exercise, to prevent gestational diabetes in a population with overweight. Stage of behaviour change was measured in late pregnancy using a five-stage classification. Ordinal logistic regression was used to examine if well-being, the study group, or their interaction, were related to behaviour change. Maternal well-being (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01, 1.04, p < 0.01) and the study group (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.44, 3.51, p < 0.01) both significantly influenced the positive stage of behaviour change. The probability of being at stage 5 increased from 43 to 92% as well-being increased from 0 to 100% and was higher in the intervention (53%) compared to the control (34%) group (p ≤ 0.01 (8.65, 29.27). This study demonstrates the potential importance of well-being in enabling women to engage with a healthy lifestyle, and the role that mHealth technology has in facilitating beneficial behaviour change.

1. Introduction

Pregnancy can be a psychologically complex time during a woman’s life [1,2]. Previous research suggests that the antenatal period may be associated with increased levels of stress and anxiety, leaving women more vulnerable and susceptible to mental health difficulties [3,4]. The prevalence of depression and anxiety in pregnancy ranges from 4 to 25%, compared to only 5% in nonpregnant women of reproductive age [5,6,7]. This is thought to be even higher in women with a raised Body Mass Index (BMI), where a negative psychological state carries the potential to compromise both maternal and foetal health [8,9,10]. Individuals with pre-existing mental health concerns may be unable to balance the psychological, social, and physical demands of pregnancy with life’s daily challenges, thus creating a debilitating sense of inadequate ‘well-being’ [11].
There is no consensus on the definition for well-being, but at a minimum, it includes the absence of negative emotions, the presence of positive emotions, positive functioning leading to fulfilment, and satisfaction with one’s life [12,13]. Well-being encompasses both physical and mental health with the aim of promoting a more holistic approach to healthcare [14]. The World Health Organisation Five-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is a self-reported assessment of subjective well-being [15]. It has been validated in screening for depression and for use as a measurable outcome of well-being in clinical research [16]. Well-being is thought to enable women to cope with the demands of pregnancy whilst satisfying their own needs [17]. In addition to affecting the maternal experience of pregnancy, well-being can influence pregnancy outcomes and subsequent childhood development [2,18]. Heightened levels of maternal stress and anxiety have been associated with reduced uterine blood flow and pregnancy-related health complications such as pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia [19,20]. Recent clinical practice guidelines in pregnancy recommend screening for mental health concerns [21]. Despite this, maternal well-being is not routinely evaluated during pregnancy, leading to missed opportunities to offer effective levels of support [22,23].
Along with well-being, lifestyle choices and maternal behaviour during pregnancy are known to have important implications for the unborn child [24]. Previous studies have demonstrated that suboptimal diet and smoking during pregnancy are associated with preterm birth, low birth weight, and neurodevelopmental disorders [25,26,27]. There is some evidence to suggest that women may be more willing to engage in health-promoting behaviours during pregnancy out of motivation for the good health of their child [28]. Therefore, pregnancy is thought to be a pivotal time when women are more receptive to making healthier lifestyle choices, yet many women grapple to do so [28]. A plethora of reasons have been suggested as to why this is so [29]. The antenatal period serves as the ideal opportunity for intervention when patients have regular contact with healthcare professionals. Despite this, many behavioural interventions trialled in the antenatal period fail to change the target behaviour [30].
There are a variety of theories in health psychology that help inform whether individuals change their behaviour [31]. In the stages of change model, an individuals’ “readiness to change” is classified in to one of five categories from “pre-contemplation (no intention or awareness of need to change) to “maintenance” (change has been made and the behaviour is being maintained) [31]. It is hypothesised that understanding the theory behind behaviour change may allow for tailored and more effective interventions, e.g. advice-giving, exploring ambivalence, or support [31]. This is of particular relevance in high-risk groups, such as those with obesity, as seen in this study, who would benefit the most from lifestyle and behaviour change [32]. The impact of women’s pre-existing state of well-being on stage of behaviour change in pregnancy is not well reported in the literature, particularly for women with overweight and obesity [33].
Access to additional support in pregnancy may enable women to engage in health-promoting lifestyle behaviours and have a better sense of personal well-being [34,35]. Traditionally, family, friends, general practitioners, and staff at maternity units were the predominant providers of social support in pregnancy [36,37]. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a global shift to more readily available online resources for antenatal support has arisen, which includes mobile phone technology [38,39]. The widespread use of smartphone technology, referred to as ‘Mobile Health’ or mHealth, is now increasingly used in healthcare settings [40]. New technologies have the potential to serve as an invaluable tool for managing chronic disease and promoting healthy behaviour without increasing the workload on clinicians [41,42,43,44,45]. They also have the potential to be cost-effective whilst giving women more autonomy over their health during pregnancy [40]. Therefore, it is prudent to assume that mHealth applications have the potential to support positive behavioural change and further impact maternal well-being through engagement with intervention [46].
The aim of our study was to investigate if maternal well-being in early pregnancy is associated with stage of behaviour change in women exposed to a novel healthy lifestyle smartphone application as part of a clinical randomised controlled trial. The hypothesis under investigation was improved maternal well-being is associated with being in a higher stage of behaviour change in pregnancy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This is a secondary analysis of data from the Pregnancy Exercise and Nutrition Research Study (PEARS) randomised controlled trial (RCT). The PEARS RCT included: an mHealth-supported, low-glycaemic index dietary advice and an exercise prescription among pregnant women with overweight or obesity. The original study was conducted at the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, and results have previously been published [39,47]. The trial was registered with an international trial registry (ISRCTN registry, http://www.isrctn.com/ (accessed on 10 October 2021), ISRCTN29316280) and ethical approval was granted by the hospital ethics committee in October 2012. Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to recruitment.
Women were recruited at their first antenatal visit between 2013 and 2016. Eligible women were those aged 18–45 years, with a singleton pregnancy between 10- and 18-weeks of gestation and had a BMI of >25 kg/m2 and <39.9 kg/m2. Exclusion criteria included a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in antecedent pregnancies, any on-going medical disorder requiring treatment, multiple pregnancies, or no access to a mobile smartphone. Recruited participants were randomised to either the control or intervention group using a computer-generated randomisation system by a biostatistician (1:1). Participants were further stratified by BMI to ensure even numbers of participants in both groups. The randomisation was revealed at the participants’ first study visit. Participants received no compensation for their participation.
The intervention consisted of an antenatal ‘healthy lifestyle package’ led by a multidisciplinary team of nutritionists, midwives, and obstetricians. Patients in the intervention group were offered an initial education session during which they were given advice on exercise and plans for a low-glycaemic diet to follow during their pregnancy and access to the study-specific smartphone application. Women were encouraged to use the app daily. The app provided daily recipes, workouts, and a motivational quote of the day. Participants received emails every fortnight to track their compliance and had face-to-face meetings with the study team at 28 and 34 weeks. Women in the control group received standard antenatal care that did not include any standard advice around nutrition. The primary outcome of the PEARS trial was the incidence of diagnosed GDM at 28–30 weeks using the criteria set out by the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group [47,48]. While the intervention did not affect the diagnosis of GDM, it led to greater exercise participation and lower GI food intake [39,47]. A further secondary analysis from this trial exploring the effect of the intervention on the C3 complement and C-reactive protein has also been published elsewhere [49].

2.2. Study Population

The PEARS trial involved pregnant women (n = 565) with overweight or obesity, and the primary outcome was the incidence of GDM determined with oral-glucose-tolerance test values. For the current analysis, only women that completed the original trial, had a live born baby, and had documented WHO-5 Well-Being Index and stage of behaviour change scores in early (10–18 weeks of gestation) and late (28 weeks of gestation) pregnancy were included (n = 277).

2.3. Data Collection

All women had their baseline biometrics (height, weight, BMI) measured by a qualified professional in early pregnancy (initial visit, 10–18 weeks) and late pregnancy (28 weeks). Supplemental demographic information including: age, ethnicity, and level of education were recorded in early pregnancy. The Pobal Haase–Pratschke Deprivation Index address mapping tool was used to obtain neighbourhood deprivation data [50].

2.4. Maternal Well-Being

Maternal well-being was assessed using the World Health Organisation 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5 Index) in early (10–18 weeks of gestation) and late pregnancy (28 weeks of gestation) [16]. This is a global tool that was previously validated in pregnancy [16]. Women were asked five questions about their well-being during the preceding two weeks. The questions assessed how frequently the woman felt (1) cheerful and in good spirits, (2) calm and relaxed, (3) active and vigorous, (4) fresh and rested, and (5) whether they felt their daily life had been filled with things that interest them. A Likert scale offered six possible answers, ranging from 0 to 5 points per question. The highest scoring response was “all of the time” (5 points), followed in descending order by “most of the time” (4 points), “more than half of the time” (3 points), “less than half of the time” (2 points), “some of the time” (1 point), and, finally, ‘at no time’ (0 points). The scores for each question were summed to give a final score ranging from 0 (lowest level of well-being) to 25 (highest level of well-being). A score < 13 was considered to be consistent with clinical depression [51]. To obtain a percentage score ranging from 0 to 100, the raw total score was multiplied by 4. A percentage score of 0 represented the worst possible score, whereas a percentage score of 100 indicated the highest level of well-being.

2.5. Behaviour Change

It was shown previously that women in the PEARS study did not differ in their preintervention stage of behaviour change. At baseline, most women were in the contemplation stage in both groups, while after the intervention, there was a significantly greater proportion of women in the maintenance phase [39]. As a result, the stage of behaviour change postintervention is the main outcome measure in this study. It was measured in late pregnancy (28 weeks of gestation) to assess women’s perceptions of their subjective readiness to engage in physical activity behaviours using a model previously validated in both pregnant and nonpregnant populations [52,53]. Women were determined by a self-reported questionnaire to be in one of five possible groups: precontemplation (stage 1), contemplation (stage 2), preparation (stage 3), action (stage 4), or maintenance (stage 5). This is based on the Transtheoretical Model or Stage of Change Model developed by Prochaska in the 1970s [54]. In the precontemplation stage, people do not plan to take action in the foreseeable future. In the contemplation stage, people start to recognize their behaviour may be problematic and intend to start engaging in healthier behaviours. In the preparation stage, people are ready to take action. In the action stage, people have changed their behaviour and plan to keep moving forward with healthy behaviour change. In the maintenance stage, people have sustained their behaviours for a period and intend to maintain them going forward.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine if maternal well-being at baseline (initial recruitment visit, 10–18 weeks), study group allocation (smartphone app versus control), or the interaction between well-being and group allocation, influenced the stage of behaviour change postintervention (28 weeks of gestation). We examined the effect of well-being and study group allocation on the stage of behaviour change with and without an interaction term to determine if an interaction improved the model fit. For the model including the interaction term, the continuous well-being variable was centred prior to analysis to improve interpretation of the parameter estimates. The “margins” command was used to predict the probability of being at each stage of behaviour change per ten-unit increase in maternal well-being (0–100) and group allocation (smartphone app versus control). Prior to analysis, data were assessed for normality using Shapiro–Wilk tests and variables considered normally distributed are reported as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range if found to have non-normal distribution. Data analysis was conducted using Stata statistical software (version 14.2) and an alpha of <0.05 was used to determine significance.

3. Results

Data from 277 women were analysed for this study and included 140 women allocated to the intervention group and 137 to the control group. Baseline maternal demographics are presented in Table 1. In summary, the population was predominantly white (90.6%) and had a mean age of 32.49 ± 4.35 years and a median BMI of 28.27 (26.73, 31.06) kg/m2s. Mean preintervention well-being in the study population was 57 ± 15%, with 30% of women having reduced well-being (<50%) and 3% having low well-being (<28%). Mean well-being scores preintervention were 58 ± 15% in the intervention group and 55 ± 15% in the control group (see Table 1).

3.1. Determinants of Behaviour-Change Stage

There was no significant interaction between well-being and group allocation variables (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99, 1.05, p = 0.17). The interaction term also did not significantly improve the model fit, so it was dropped from the model prior to the evaluation of the main effects. Maternal well-being (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01, 1.04, p < 0.01) and the study group (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.44, 3.51, p < 0.01) both significantly influenced the stage of behaviour change postintervention.

3.2. Maternal Well-Being and Stage of Behaviour Change

Maternal well-being at each stage of behaviour change is shown in Table 2. For every ten-point increase in well-being, there was a corresponding shift in the probability of the stage of behaviour change (Figure 1). For stages 1–4, there was a decrease in the probability of being at each stage with every incremental increase in maternal well-being (decreasing from 4 to 0.5% at stage 1, 30 to 3% at stage 2, 16 to 3% at stage 3, and 7 to 2% at stage 4). The probability of being at stage 5 increased from 43 to 92% as maternal well-being increased from 0 to 100%.

3.3. The PEARS RCT Intervention and Behaviour Change

The predicted probability of being at behaviour-change stages 1, 2, or 3 was significantly higher in the control group postintervention. There was no difference in the predicted probability of behaviour-change stage 4 between the intervention and control groups (7% vs. 6%). The predicted probability of being at stage 5 postintervention was significantly higher in the intervention group postintervention (Table 3). The differences were greatest at behaviour-change stages 2 and 5, with women at stage 2 of behaviour change being 14 percentage points more likely to be in the control group (37% vs. 23%) and women at stage 5 being 19 percentage points more likely to be in the intervention group (53% vs. 34%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Principal Findings

We found that women with higher subjective levels of personal well-being in early pregnancy showed a higher tendency to change their health and lifestyle behaviours during pregnancy. Conversely, poor maternal well-being was significantly associated with the likelihood of behaviour change in pregnancy. Our study also showed that women were more likely to be in a positive stage of behaviour change when exposed to a healthy lifestyle intervention including a smartphone application.

4.2. Maternal Well-Being in Antenatal Care

Our findings highlight the potential significance of acknowledging maternal well-being as standard in maternity care. This is consistent with the recently published core outcome sets (COSs) for the prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, in which well-being is identified as an essential outcome for incorporation [55]. There can be significant variation in states of maternal well-being throughout pregnancy, when women are particularly vulnerable to states of poor overall health [56]. This is clearly reflected by the range of WHO-5 scores reported by women taking part in this trial. However, identifying those with poor well-being can be problematic, as often the women most at risk do not reach out and seek help [57]. Therefore, screening for maternal well-being is an opportunity for early detection and intervention centred around positive behaviour change [58,59].
Clinical practice guidelines have recently been updated to yield similar recommendations for mental health screening in pregnancy [21]. Professional bodies also recognise the risk of poor mental health and the need for clear pathways for the screening and management of perinatal mental health. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidance recommends routine screening for mental health problems such as depression and anxiety [59]. While the WHO-5 Index was originally developed for assessing subjective well-being, recent evidence suggest that is has valid psychometric properties for assessing depressive symptoms [60,61,62]. A WHO-5 score of less than <28% has been correlated to a diagnosis of major depression using the DSM-IV criterion [63]. Here, we demonstrate the use of the validated WHO-5 Well-Being Index as a potential means of screening for maternal well-being in pregnancy. However, its use could potentially be expanded as a global screening tool for both perinatal mental health and well-being in everyday antenatal care.
With an effective strategy of screening for well-being in place in everyday antenatal care, we can identify women with low well-being earlier and considerably more consistently. With this information at our disposal from early on in pregnancy, we can offer earlier access to mental health services, increased contact with health professionals, and multidisciplinary involvement between obstetricians, psychiatrists, social workers, midwives, and general practitioners.

4.3. Stage of Behaviour Change and Well-Being

This study found that pregnancy is an opportunistic, ‘teachable moment’ for behaviour and lifestyle change [64]. Motivation to make a change is often driven by the awareness that the lifestyle choices a woman makes in pregnancy may have implications for both her and her unborn child [65]. Diet and exercise in pregnancy has been the focus of extensive research. Optimizing nutrition has the potential to improve outcomes for both the mother and the child [66]. Suboptimal diet, alcohol consumption, and smoking in pregnancy have been linked in previous studies to preterm birth, low birth weight, and neurodevelopmental disorders [25,26,67,68]. In addition, previous research suggests that by adopting healthy physical activity and dietary behaviours during pregnancy, women can reduce the risk of obstetric complications such as gestational diabetes and preeclampsia [69].
It is well reported in the literature that the motivation to make healthy changes in pregnancy is often driven by a desire to ensure the good health of the baby [70,71]. There are few longitudinal studies allowing the accurate interpretation of behaviour change in pregnancy and what factors influence a woman’s behaviour to change [65]. This study demonstrated that maternal well-being influenced a state of behaviour change postintervention. Women with a subjective sense of poor psychological well-being were less likely to change their behaviour in pregnancy. Our findings suggest that, by recognising women with poor well-being through screening, we can identify women who may be less likely to implement behaviour changes that are known to improve maternal and foetal outcomes. This provides a strategy to guide interventions in antenatal care [72].

4.4. Stages of Behaviour Change in Pregnancy

Here, we observed that women with overweight and obesity, for the most part, enter pregnancy wanting to make positive behaviour changes. Women with higher levels of personal well-being were more likely to transition from contemplation/preparation to maintenance when exposed to an mHealth-supported lifestyle intervention. If these behaviours are maintained, this has the potential to have long-lasting health benefits for both the mother and the child.

4.5. mHealth Intervention

With a global shift towards digital technology, including smartphone applications, there is increasing need to modernise routine pregnancy care [73]. Research has demonstrated that smartphone applications can improve readiness to engage with physical activity as well as dietary intake [74]. In the PEARS trial, the intervention group increased their moderate intensity exercise by on average 18 min more per week while the control group showed no difference. The PEARS trial equally succeeded in increasing adherence to healthy dietary advice in the intervention group compared to the control. Furthermore, this intervention employed several behaviour-change theories with the aim of effectively targeting behaviour constructs [48]. This allowed a systematic approach to evaluating the interventions effect on behaviour change in clinical practise [75]. A previous meta-analysis of interventions using behaviour-change theories highlighted their role in combatting low levels of physical activity in pregnancy [76]. Our findings suggest that behavioural change interventions, supported by mHealth, can work symbiotically to improve health-promoting behaviours amongst pregnant women.
Furthermore, mHealth is an exciting advancement in modern medicine with many advantages over traditional maternity care. It makes information readily available for pregnant women through smartphone applications, digital communications, or video consultations, all in the comfort of their own home [77]. In addition, it can reduce the problems caused by unequal access to healthcare in remote geographical locations, with long-distance health services referred to as telehealth [78]. Moreover, it has the potential to reduce long-term costs in maternity care by reducing the number of hospital visits, reducing transport costs for both patients and staff, and reducing time-to-diagnosis [77,79].

4.6. Strengths and Limitations

The key strengths of this study comprised the inclusion of novel data pertaining to well-being, behaviour change, and smartphone application support. Maternal well-being was also measured using a validated scoring system recommended by the World Health Organisation.
There are also some limitations worth noting, which include the secondary analysis of existing data, as well as the potential for social desirability bias in the intervention group, such that reported improvements in well-being and healthy behaviours may have been adjusted to echo the advice given to participants. Another limitation was the attrition rate in the data collection of the well-being and behaviour-change scores, which greatly reduced our study sample size compared to the original sample of the PEARS RCT. The nature of our sample makes it difficult to generalize results. Additionally, this study was exploratory in using existing data, meaning no sample size calculation was undertaken. Due to the relatively small sample, confounders were not included in this exploratory analysis. In future research, it would be informative to include other associated variables such as social support in the analysis. Finally, for the purpose of this RCT, the well-being index and stage of behaviour change scores were only recorded in early and late pregnancy. Future research is needed looking at the impact of the well-being index on the stage of behaviour change throughout all stages of pregnancy and postpartum to fully understand its short- and long-term implications on maternal and foetal health.

4.7. Clinical Implications

This study highlights the role of maternal well-being as a key predictor of women’s readiness to engage and change their behaviours in pregnancy. Adopting healthy behaviours could potentially lead to improved maternal and foetal outcomes in pregnancy. This study advocates for the need to routinely screen maternal well-being, opening up opportunities for early intervention to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index is a free, easily accessible, standardised tool for assessing maternal well-being that is available in many languages and has been validated for use in pregnancy. The results of this investigation also support the adoption of mHealth, specifically smartphone apps, to complement traditional antenatal care to improve maternal lifestyle choices. The ‘Hollestic’ smartphone app is an example of one such app, launched at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin and which is now available for free to download from the Google store, and which provides up-to-date information for nutrition and physical activity in pregnancy.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of maternal well-being in enabling women to engage in a healthy lifestyle, and the role that smartphone app technology has in facilitating beneficial behaviour change. Future research is needed to ascertain if these changes are maintained in a patient’s lifestyle postpartum. In addition, mHealth has the potential to transform healthcare through improved convenience, reduced costs, and demands on our healthcare system. However, its effectiveness and implementation will require ongoing evaluation from evidence-based information so that mHealth continues to develop and adapt to the current conditions of our healthcare system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.M.; Methodology, D.R., A.R. and S.H.; Software, Stata statistical software (version 14.2); Validation, D.R., A.R., S.H. and S.L.K.; Formal analysis, D.R., A.R. and S.H.; writing—review and editing, D.R., A.R., S.L.K., S.H., M.K. and F.M.M.; Supervision, F.M.M. and M.K.; Funding acquisition, F.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The PEARS study was funded by the National Maternity Hospital medical fund. No direct funding was received for the purpose of this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Maternity Hospital on 22 October 2012.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following: the study participants, the staff at the National Maternity Hospital, and the women who took part in the PEARS trial.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Otchet, F.; Carey, M.S.; Adam, L. General health and psychological symptom status in pregnancy and the puerperium: What is normal? Obstet. Gynecol. 1999, 94, 935–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hoffman, S.; Hatch, M.C. Depressive symptomatology during pregnancy: Evidence for an association with decreased fetal growth in pregnancies of lower social class women. Health Psychol. 2000, 19, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Della Vedova, A.M.; Ducceschi, B.; Cesana, B.M.; Imbasciati, A. Maternal bonding and risk of depression in late pregnancy: A survey of Italian nulliparous women. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2011, 29, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bödecs, T.; Horváth, B.; Szilágyi, E.; Gonda, X.; Rihmer, Z.; Sándor, J. Effects of depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and health behaviour on neonatal outcomes in a population-based Hungarian sample. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011, 154, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Evans, J.; Heron, J.; Francomb, H.; Oke, S.; Golding, J. Cohort study of depressed mood during pregnancy and after childbirth. BMJ 2001, 323, 257–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Guo, N.; Robakis, T.; Miller, C.; Butwick, A. Prevalence of depression among women of reproductive age in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 131, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fraga, A.C.S.A.; Theme-Filha, M.M. Pregestational overweight and obesity and symptoms of postpartum depression: Data from the Birth in Brazil Study. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 277, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Laraia, B.A.; Siega-Riz, A.M.; Dole, N.; London, E. Pregravid weight is associated with prior dietary restraint and psychosocial factors during pregnancy. Obesity 2009, 17, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Rafferty, A.R.; Geraghty, A.A.; Kennelly, M.A.; O’Brien, E.C.; Reji, R.M.; Mehegan, J.; Segurado, R.; Smith, T.; Maguire, O.; Cronin, M.; et al. Limited impact of fetal sex and maternal body mass index on fetal and maternal insulin resistance and lipid metabolism: Findings from the PEARs study. Reprod. Sci. 2020, 27, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McNamara, J.; Townsend, M.L.; Herbert, J.S. A systemic review of maternal wellbeing and its relationship with maternal fetal attachment and early postpartum bonding. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Frey, B.S.; Stutzer, A. Happiness and Economics; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Andrews, F.M.; Withey, S.B. Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunn, H.L. High-level wellness for man and society. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 1959, 49, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bech, P.; Gudex, C.; Johansen, K.S. The WHO (Ten) well-being index: Validation in diabetes. Psychother. Psychosom. 1996, 65, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Topp, C.W.; Østergaard, S.D.; Søndergaard, S.; Bech, P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 2015, 84, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Herrman, H.; Saxena, S.; Moodie, R. Promoting Mental Health: Concepts, Emerging Evidence, Practice; A Report of the World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse in Collaboration with the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the University of Melbourne; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Da Costa, D.; Larouche, J.; Dritsa, M.; Brender, W. Variations in stress levels over the course of pregnancy: Factors associated with elevated hassles, state anxiety and pregnancy-specific stress. J. Psychosom. Res. 1999, 47, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hernández-Valencia, M.; Montes, A.M.R.; López, C.V.; Angulo, J.A.P.; Girón, A.V.; Zárate, A. Catecholamines level variation during pregnancy in women with diabetes and preeclampsia. Ginecol. Obstet. Mex. 2007, 75, 454–458. [Google Scholar]
  20. Laatikainen, T.; Virtanen, T.; Kaaja, R.; Salminen-Lappalainen, K. Corticotropin-releasing hormone in maternal and cord plasma in pre-eclampsia. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 1991, 39, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McAuliffe, F.M.; Killeen, S.L.; Jacob, C.M.; Hanson, M.A.; Hadar, E.; McIntyre, H.D.; Kapur, A.; Kihara, A.B.; Ma, R.C.; Divakar, H.; et al. Management of prepregnancy, pregnancy, and postpartum obesity from the FIGO Pregnancy and Non-Communicable Diseases Committee: A FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) guideline. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2020, 151 (Suppl. S1), 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Levine, T.A.; Alderdice, F.A.; Grunau, R.E.; McAuliffe, F.M. Prenatal stress and hemodynamics in pregnancy: A systematic review. Arch. Women’s Ment. Health 2016, 19, 721–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Levine, T.A.; Grunau, R.E.; Segurado, R.; Daly, S.; Geary, M.P.; Kennelly, M.M.; O’Donoghue, K.; Hunter, A.; Morrison, J.J.; Burke, G.J.; et al. Pregnancy-specific stress, fetoplacental haemodynamics, and neonatal outcomes in women with small for gestational age pregnancies: A secondary analysis of the multicentre Prospective Observational Trial to Optimise Paediatric Health in Intrauterine Growth Restriction. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e015326. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gray, R.; Henderson, J. Review of the Fetal Effects of Prenatal Alcohol Exposure; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  25. Shah, N.R.; Bracken, M.B. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies on the association between maternal cigarette smoking and preterm delivery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000, 182, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Mikkelsen, T.B.; Osler, M.; Orozova-Bekkevold, I.; Knudsen, V.K.; Olsen, S.F. Association between fruit and vegetable consumption and birth weight: A prospective study among 43,585 Danish women. Scand. J. Public Health 2006, 34, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rogers, I.; Emmett, P.; Baker, D.; Golding, J. Financial difficulties, smoking habits, composition of the diet and birthweight in a population of pregnant women in the South West of England. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998, 52, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lindqvist, M.; Lindkvist, M.; Eurenius, E.; Persson, M.; Mogren, I. Change of lifestyle habits–motivation and ability reported by pregnant women in northern Sweden. Sex. Reprod. HealthCare 2017, 13, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rockliffe, L.; Peters, S.; Heazell, A.E.; Smith, D.M. Factors influencing health behaviour change during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2021, 15, 613–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dodd, J.M.; Crowther, C.A.; Robinson, J.S. Dietary and lifestyle interventions to limit weight gain during pregnancy for obese or overweight women: A systematic review. Acta Obstet. Et Gynecol. Scand. 2008, 87, 702–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barley, E.; Lawson, V. Using health psychology to help patients: Theories of behaviour change. Br. J. Nurs. 2016, 25, 924–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poston, L.; Bell, R.; Croker, H.; Flynn, A.C.; Godfrey, K.M.; Goff, L.; Hayes, L.; Khazaezadeh, N.; Nelson, S.M.; Oteng-Ntim, E.; et al. Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015, 3, 767–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hill, B.; Kothe, E.J.; Currie, S.; Danby, M.; Lang, A.Y.; Bailey, C.; Moran, L.J.; Teede, H.; North, M.; Bruce, L.J.; et al. A systematic mapping review of the associations between pregnancy intentions and health-related lifestyle behaviours or psychological wellbeing. Prev. Med. Rep. 2019, 14, 100869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Elsenbruch, S.; Benson, S.; Rucke, M.; Rose, M.; Dudenhausen, J.; Pincus-Knackstedt, M.K.; Klapp, B.F.; Arck, P. Social support during pregnancy: Effects on maternal depressive symptoms, smoking and pregnancy outcome. Hum. Reprod. 2007, 22, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Sheehan, T.J. Stress and low birth weight: A structural modeling approach using real life stressors. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 47, 1503–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bedaso, A.; Adams, J.; Peng, W.; Sibbritt, D. The relationship between social support and mental health problems during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Health 2021, 18, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Battulga, B.; Benjamin, M.R.; Chen, H.; Bat-Enkh, E. The impact of social support and pregnancy on subjective well-being: A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, H.; Sun, W.; Huang, X.; Yu, S.; Wang, H.; Bi, X.; Sheng, J.; Chen, S.; Akinwunmi, B.; Zhang, C.J.P.; et al. Online Antenatal Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Opportunities and Challenges. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ainscough, K.M.; O’Brien, E.C.; Lindsay, K.L.; Kennelly, M.A.; O’Sullivan, E.J.; O’Brien, O.A.; McCarthy, M.; De Vito, G.; McAuliffe, F.M. Nutrition, Behavior Change and Physical Activity Outcomes from the PEARS RCT—An mHealth-Supported, Lifestyle Intervention among Pregnant Women with Overweight and Obesity. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. O’Sullivan, E.J.; Rokicki, S.; Kennelly, M.; Ainscough, K.; McAuliffe, F.M. Cost-effectiveness of a mobile health-supported lifestyle intervention for pregnant women with an elevated body mass index. Int. J. Obes. 2020, 44, 999–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. WHO. MHealth: New Horizons for Health through Mobile Technologies; Second Global Survey on eHealth; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hughson, J.-A.P.; Daly, J.O.; Woodward-Kron, R.; Hajek, J.; Story, D. The rise of pregnancy apps and the implications for culturally and linguistically diverse women: Narrative review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018, 6, e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Beulen, Y.H.; Super, S.; de Vries, J.H.; Koelen, M.A.; Feskens, E.J.; Wagemakers, A. Dietary interventions for healthy pregnant women: A systematic review of tools to promote a healthy antenatal dietary intake. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brown, H.M.; Bucher, T.; Collins, C.E.; Rollo, M.E. A review of pregnancy apps freely available in the Google Play Store. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2020, 31, 340–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tassone, C.; Keshavjee, K.; Paglialonga, A.; Moreira, N.; Pinto, J.; Quintana, Y. Evaluation of mobile apps for treatment of patients at risk of developing gestational diabetes. Health Inform. J. 2020, 26, 1983–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Chan, K.L.; Chen, M. Effects of social media and mobile health apps on pregnancy care: Meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e11836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kennelly, M.A.; Ainscough, K.; Lindsay, K.L.; O’Sullivan, E.; Gibney, E.R.; McCarthy, M.; Segurado, R.; DeVito, G.; Maguire, O.; Smith, T.; et al. Pregnancy Exercise and Nutrition With Smartphone Application Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 131, 818–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kennelly, M.A.; Ainscough, K.; Lindsay, K.; Gibney, E.; Mc Carthy, M.; McAuliffe, F.M. Pregnancy, exercise and nutrition research study with smart phone app support (Pears): Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2016, 46, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kennelly, M.A.; Killeen, S.L.; Phillips, C.M.; Alberdi, G.; Lindsay, K.L.; Mehegan, J.; Cronin, M.; McAuliffe, F.M. Maternal C3 complement and C-reactive protein and pregnancy and fetal outcomes: A secondary analysis of the PEARS RCT-An mHealth-supported, lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with overweight and obesity. Cytokine 2022, 149, 155748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Haase, T.; Pratschke, J. The 2011 Pobal HP Deprivation Index for Small Areas (SA): Introduction and Reference Tables; Poabl Dublin: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bech, P.; Olsen, L.R.; Kjoller, M.; Rasmussen, N.K. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2003, 12, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Marcus, B.H.; Forsyth, L.H. Motivating People to Be Physically Active; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  53. Haakstad, L.A.H.; Voldner, N.; Bø, K. Stages of change model for participation in physical activity during pregnancy. J. Pregnancy 2013, 2013, 193170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Prochaska, J.O.; Redding, C.A.; Evers, K.E. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. Health Behav. Theory Res. Pract. 2015, 97, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
  55. Meher, S.; Cuthbert, A.; Kirkham, J.J.; Williamson, P.; Abalos, E.; Aflaifel, N.; Bhutta, Z.; Bishop, A.; Blum, J.; Collins, P.; et al. Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: An international Delphi consensus study. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019, 126, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Emmanuel, E.N.; Sun, J. Health related quality of life across the perinatal period among Australian women. J. Clin. Nurs. 2014, 23, 1611–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fonseca, A.; Gorayeb, R.; Canavarro, M.C. Women’s help-seeking behaviours for depressive symptoms during the perinatal period: Socio-demographic and clinical correlates and perceived barriers to seeking professional help. Midwifery 2015, 31, 1177–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. O’Connor, E.; Rossom, R.C.; Henninger, M.; Groom, H.C.; Burda, B.U. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016, 315, 388–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Health NCCfM (Ed.) Antenatal and Postnatal Mental health: Clinical Management and Service Guidance: Updated Edition 2014; British Psychological Society: Leicester, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  60. Guðmundsdóttir, H.B.; Ólason, D.Þ.; Guðmundsdóttir, D.G.; Sigurðsson, J.F. A psychometric evaluation of the Icelandic version of the WHO-5. Scand. J. Psychol. 2014, 55, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hajos, T.R.; Pouwer, F.; Skovlund, S.; Den Oudsten, B.L.; Geelhoed-Duijvestijn, P.; Tack, C.; Snoek, F.J. Psychometric and screening properties of the WHO-5 well-being index in adult outpatients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet. Med. 2013, 30, e63–e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Furuya, M.; Hayashino, Y.; Tsujii, S.; Ishii, H.; Fukuhara, S. Comparative validity of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index and two-question instrument for screening depressive symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2013, 50, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Löwe, B.; Spitzer, R.L.; Gräfe, K.; Kroenke, K.; Quenter, A.; Zipfel, S.; Buchholz, C.; Witte, S.; Herzog, W. Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians’ diagnoses. J. Affect. Disord. 2004, 78, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Phelan, S. Pregnancy: A “teachable moment” for weight control and obesity prevention. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 202, 135.e1–135.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Crozier, S.R.; Robinson, S.M.; Borland, S.E.; Godfrey, K.M.; Cooper, C.; Inskip, H.M.; SWS Study Group. Do women change their health behaviours in pregnancy? Findings from the Southampton Women’s Survey. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 2009, 23, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yelverton, C.A.; Rafferty, A.A.; Moore, R.L.; Byrne, D.F.; Mehegan, J.; Cotter, P.D.; Van Sinderen, D.; Murphy, E.F.; Killeen, S.L.; McAuliffe, F.M. Diet and mental health in pregnancy: Nutrients of importance based on large observational cohort data. Nutrition 2022, 96, 111582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alati, R.; Davey Smith, G.; Lewis, S.J.; Sayal, K.; Draper, E.S.; Golding, J.; Fraser, R.; Gray, R. Effect of prenatal alcohol exposure on childhood academic outcomes: Contrasting maternal and paternal associations in the ALSPAC study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Fernandes, O.; Sabharwal, M.; Smiley, T.; Pastuszak, A.; Koren, G.; Einarson, T. Moderate to heavy caffeine consumption during pregnancy and relationship to spontaneous abortion and abnormal fetal growth: A meta-analysis. Reprod. Toxicol. 1998, 12, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, Z.; Phung, H.; Freebairn, L.; Sexton, R.; Raulli, A.; Kelly, P. Contribution of maternal overweight and obesity to the occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019, 59, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bartholomew, L.K.; Mullen, P.D. Five roles for using theory and evidence in the design and testing of behavior change interventions. J. Public Health Dent. 2011, 71 (Suppl. S1), S20–S33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Abalos, E.; Chamillard, M.; Diaz, V.; Tuncalp Gulmezoglu, A.M. Antenatal care for healthy pregnant women: A mapping of interventions from existing guidelines to inform the development of new WHO guidance on antenatal care. BJOG 2016, 123, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Wickberg, B.; Tjus, T.; Hwang, P. Using the EPDS in routine antenatal care in Sweden: A naturalistic study. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2005, 23, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lupton, D. The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: A focus group study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016, 16, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Greene, E.M.; O’Brien, E.C.; Kennelly, M.A.; O’Brien, O.A.; Lindsay, K.L.; McAuliffe, F.M. Acceptability of the pregnancy, exercise, and nutrition research study with smartphone app support (PEARS) and the use of mobile health in a mixed lifestyle intervention by pregnant obese and overweight women: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021, 9, e17189. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ainscough, K.M.; Lindsay, K.L.; O’Sullivan, E.J.; Gibney, E.R.; McAuliffe, F.M. Behaviour change in overweight and obese pregnancy: A decision tree to support the development of antenatal lifestyle interventions. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 2642–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Currie, S.; Sinclair, M.; Murphy, M.H.; Madden, E.; Dunwoody, L.; Liddle, D. Reducing the decline in physical activity during pregnancy: A systematic review of behaviour change interventions. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kusyanti, T.; Wirakusumah, F.F.; Rinawan, F.R.; Muhith, A.; Purbasari, A.; Mawardi, F.; Puspitasari, I.W.; Faza, A.; Stellata, A.G. Technology-Based (Mhealth) and Standard/Traditional Maternal Care for Pregnant Woman: A Systematic Literature Review. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhu, X.-H.; Tao, J.; Jiang, L.-Y.; Zhang, Z.-F. Role of usual healthcare combined with telemedicine in the management of high-risk pregnancy in Hangzhou, China. J. Healthc. Eng. 2019, 2019, 3815857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Steinhubl, S.R.; Muse, E.D.; Topol, E.J. Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA 2013, 310, 2395–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 00034 g001 550
Figure 1. Predicted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals for each 10-point incremental increase in the percentage of maternal WHO-5 Well-Being Index scores for each stage of behaviour change.
Figure 1. Predicted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals for each 10-point incremental increase in the percentage of maternal WHO-5 Well-Being Index scores for each stage of behaviour change.
Ijerph 20 00034 g001
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population (n = 277).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population (n = 277).
Baseline Characteristics Intervention (n = 140)Control (n = 137)
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
Age (y)32.60 (4.80)31.76 (4.04)
Height (m)1.64 (0.06)1.65 (0.07)
Weight (Kg) †77 (70, 84)78 (72, 85)
BMI (Kg/m2) †28 (27, 31)28 (27, 31)
Gestation (w) †15 (14, 16)15 (14, 16)
White *132 (94)122 (89)
Completed tertiary education *83 (59)107 (78)
Current smoker *5 (4)7 (5)
HP Pobal index
Maternal well-being		6.33 (10.90)
55 (15)		6.13 (11.59)
58 (15)
* denotes n (%); † denotes non-normal data represented as median (interquartile range).
Table
Table 2. Baseline maternal well-being scores * at each stage of behaviour change. Values reported are mean percentage scores (standard deviation; SD).
Table 2. Baseline maternal well-being scores * at each stage of behaviour change. Values reported are mean percentage scores (standard deviation; SD).
Maternal Well-Being Scores (Mean (SD))
Stage of Behaviour Change Overall (n = 277)Intervention (n = 140)Control (n = 137)
Stage 1 (precontemplation)55 (11)52 (5)56 (4)
Stage 2 (contemplation)53 (15)55 (3)52 (2)
Stage 3 (preparation)55 (15)52 (2)57 (4)
Stage 4 (action)56 (13)59 (3)54 (4)
Stage 5 (maintenance) 61 (14)62 (2)59 (2)
Overall Mean (SD)57 (1)58 (1)56 (1)
* Maternal well-being scores were determined using the WHO-5 Well-Being Index.
Table
Table 3. Percentage predicted probabilities of postintervention behaviour-change scores based on study group allocation (intervention vs. control).
Table 3. Percentage predicted probabilities of postintervention behaviour-change scores based on study group allocation (intervention vs. control).
Stage of Behaviour Change Intervention (n = 140)Control (n = 137)Percentage Differencep-Value (CI)
Stage 1 (precontemplation)3% 7% −4%<0.01 (−6.21, −1.06)
Stage 2 (contemplation)23% 37% −14%<0.01 (−21.7, −6.11)
Stage 3 (preparation)14%16% −2%0.03 (−3.29, −0.14)
Stage 4 (action)7% 6% <1%0.31 (−0.28, 0.86)
Stage 5 (maintenance)53%34% +19%<0.01 (8.65, 29.27)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roche, D.; Rafferty, A.; Holden, S.; Killeen, S.L.; Kennelly, M.; McAuliffe, F.M. Maternal Well-Being and Stage of Behaviour Change during Pregnancy: A Secondary Analysis of the PEARS Randomised Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010034

AMA Style

Roche D, Rafferty A, Holden S, Killeen SL, Kennelly M, McAuliffe FM. Maternal Well-Being and Stage of Behaviour Change during Pregnancy: A Secondary Analysis of the PEARS Randomised Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010034

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roche, Doireann, Anthony Rafferty, Sinead Holden, Sarah Louise Killeen, Maria Kennelly, and Fionnuala M. McAuliffe. 2023. "Maternal Well-Being and Stage of Behaviour Change during Pregnancy: A Secondary Analysis of the PEARS Randomised Controlled Trial" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010034

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop