↓ Skip to main content

Psychological antecedents of excess gestational weight gain: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychological antecedents of excess gestational weight gain: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0535-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mufiza Zia Kapadia, Anca Gaston, Sherry Van Blyderveen, Louis Schmidt, Joseph Beyene, Helen McDonald, Sarah D McDonald

Abstract

Excess gestational weight gain (GWG), which has reached epidemic proportions, is associated with adverse outcomes during pregnancy and postpartum obesity in women and children. Psychological variables represent potentially modifiable factors. Moreover, previous systematic reviews on GWG interventions have called for the need for a clearer understanding of psychological factors affecting GWG. Hence, a systematic review was conducted to summarize the relation between psychological factors and GWG. Eight databases were searched, and the guidelines on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were followed. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two assessors independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full articles, extracted data and assessed quality. A total of 6198 titles and abstracts were reviewed of which 90 full text articles were retrieved. Thirty-five studies (25 cohort, eight cross-sectional and two case-control) met the inclusion criteria, assessing 26 different psychological constructs in affect, cognitions and personality. Negative affective states such as depression, anxiety and stress were not related to excess GWG. Among weight-related and dietary-related cognitions, risk factors for excess GWG included concern about weight gain, negative body image and attitude towards weight gain, inaccurate perceptions regarding weight, higher than recommended target weight gain, less knowledge about weight gain, higher levels of cognitive dietary restraint, and perceived barriers to healthy eating. Protective factors included an internal locus of control for weight gain, lower than recommended target weight gain and higher self-efficacy for healthy eating. Only one study examined the relation between personality and excess GWG. In this systematic review, a number of cognitive factors were identified that were associated with excess GWG. To address excess GWG, more high quality, adequately powered studies are required examining cognitions, motivation and personality factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 301 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Researcher 23 8%
Other 14 5%
Other 57 19%
Unknown 87 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 14%
Psychology 42 14%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 94 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,598,513
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,291
of 4,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,895
of 265,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#30
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,442 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.