ReviewmHealth2025
Predictors of physical activity in daily life among women of reproductive age: a scoping review.
Review in mHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining physical activity and menstrual cycle experiences among insufficiently active women: Project PACE protocol.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Exercise and physical activity changes during the menstrual cycle in users of the Flo app.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is crucial for health promotion and chronic illness prevention. As chronic illness is increasing among women in young adulthood, there is an urgent need for effective strategies to encourage PA in this population. An improved understanding of PA behaviors and their determinants in daily life among women of reproductive age (i.e., ages 18-50 years) would help to inform intervention efforts. The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize methods and evidence for studies of time-sensitive predictors of PA among women of reproductive age, and to identify key gaps to be addressed. Methods: Searches in Academic Search Complete, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science identified observational or experimental studies that used a mobile tool (e.g., wearable PA sensor). Studies were eligible for inclusion if the primary outcome was objectively assessed PA, the predictor was assessed at least once daily, and if participants did not have a medical or psychiatric contraindication to performing PA. Results: Of the initial 1,874 results, 7 articles that described 6 unique studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 858 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 292, and mean age from 20.0 to 42.1 years. We summarized participant characteristics, study characteristics, and findings. Most studies were observational (71.4%). Common PA outcomes were step count and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA, assessed using commercially available or research-grade devices. PA predictors were assessed at 2 levels (i.e., person or day/moment), with considerable variability in the frequency of assessment. Conclusions: This review highlights strengths and weaknesses of the current evidence base and identifies key opportunities for advancing our understanding of PA behaviors among women of reproductive age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.