More women are entering pregnancy as overweight (OV) or having obesity (OB) than in
the past, and many are gaining excessive weight during pregnancy. During 2011 to 2014,
34.4% of the U.S. women of childbearing age (aged 20–39 years) are OV or have OB.[1] For women who gave birth in 2016, 21% aged 18 to 24 years, 23% aged 25 to 34 years,
and 24% aged 35 to 44 years had OB.[2] Weight gain exceeding the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations, known as
excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), increases the burden of chronic disease and
can put the mother and her infant's health at risk. These burdens include, but are
not limited to, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, cesarean
section delivery, and preterm birth.[2] Additionally, children of mothers who gain more weight during pregnancy are at higher
risk of being OV in early childhood.[3]
Based on the 2009 IOM guidelines, the recommended amount of GWG for underweight women
(body mass index [BMI] <18.5 kg/m2) is 12.5 to 18 kg (28–40 lb), normal weight (NW) women (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2) is 11.5 to 16 kg (25–35 lb), OV women (BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m2) is 7 to 11.5 kg (15–25 lb), and women who have OB (BMI >30.0 kg/m2) is 5 to 9 kg (11–20 lb).[4] Previous studies have addressed the ability to control GWG and prevent weight exceeding
IOM recommendations where all forms of interventions were considered statistically
significant: nutrition only,[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] nutrition only for OV/OB women,[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] nutrition plus exercise,[5]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] nutrition plus exercise for OV/OB women,[10]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] exercise only,[17] and exercise only for OV/OB women.[10]
[27]
[28]
[29] The study expands on the 2015 Cochrane Review (Muktabhant et al [2015]) assessment
of methods involving nutrition, exercise, and combination of nutrition-plus-exercise
intervention studies to prevent excessive pregnancy weight gain based on studies published
after the 2009 IOM recommendations. The Cochrane Review found that whether women participated
in nutrition, exercise, or both interventions, their risk of excessive GWG was reduced
by an average of 20% and women of intervention groups were more likely to experience
low GWG than those in control groups.[30] The Cochrane Review and other previous reviews included studies prior to 2009, which
could not have used the updated IOM guidelines. A review of interventions that only
includes studies published after 2009 is necessary. This meta-analysis exclusively
uses studies published after updated IOM guidelines were available. The objective
of this study is to quantitatively assess the effect of three health system strategies
on GWG: nutrition-only, exercise-only, and combination of nutrition-plus-exercise
interventions.
Methods
PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched weekly from September 20, 2016,
through October 29, 2016. All studies included in 2015 Cochrane Review were examined.
Initial key terms search produced 5,528,591 results. Key terms include “pregnancy,”
“body mass index (BMI),” “nutrition,” “exercise,” “counseling,” “obesity,” “overweight,”
or “intervention.” Limiting publish dates from 2009 to 2016 produced 1,199,520 results.
Studies published before 2009 were assumed to not have used the 2009 IOM recommendations
for GWG, and therefore, ineligible for this meta-analysis. “Gestational weight gain”
filters narrowed results to 14,827. All studies were assessed: 12,363 excluded based
on irrelevant title; 2,398 excluded based on irrelevant abstract. Full articles for
the remaining 66 studies were obtained. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework was used for search and reporting of studies.
Search was performed by primary author (K.A.C.). Not all aspects of PRISMA were addressed,
including risk of bias across studies, due to single person data collection.
Reasons for exclusion include: mean GWG not reported, study published before 2009,
and study in trial state ([Fig. 1]). Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled parallel or cross-sectional study; at
least 20 singleton pregnant women; women aged 18 years or older; control group with
standard obstetric care; report means of GWG based on baseline BMI or pre-pregnancy
BMI; and use 2009 IOM guidelines for GWG. For studies that did not use the 2009 IOM
guidelines, additional analysis was made based on the reported mean GWG.
Fig. 1 Electronic search strategy and inclusion criteria for studies used in meta-analysis.
Data were collected for total GWG in kilogram based on the BMI (kg/m2) of women prior to pregnancy, age at the beginning of gestation, and pre-pregnancy
BMI. Statistical analysis was done using Excel Version 2016 (Microsoft, Santa Rosa,
CA, United States) and online Vassar Stats application[a]. Due to strong evidence of heterogeneity between studies, using the random effect
approach, we addressed the source of this heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed using Vassar Stats to compare effect of intervention
and control groups within each study and relative effectiveness of health system strategies.
The summary measure in this meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference, defined
as the ratio of the difference in mean outcome between the groups and the standard
deviation of the outcome among participants. Additional analysis on supervised versus
unsupervised exercise was completed. Furthermore, we provided the average GWG means
for interventions and subgroups, mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals in
the results section.
Results
Study Search
Using the search terms, 66 results were identified. Thirty-five were excluded for
not meeting criteria. Thirty-one involving 8,558 participants met criteria and contributed
data to these analyses. Of these 31 studies, 6 were nutrition only,[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] 22 were nutrition plus exercise,[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55] and 11 were exercise only.[51]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61] Four were used twice because data of participants with NW, OV, and having OB were
analyzed separately.[48]
[59]
[60]
[61] Two were used twice because they reported data of different interventions within
studies.[51]
[52] One included interventions based on exercise only and nutrition plus exercise.[51] One included interventions based on low intensity (LI) and moderate intensity (MI)
exercise.[52] Results for all interventions reported separately were treated as separate studies.
After separation of data, the 31 studies are analyzed as 39 studies.
Participants
These 39 studies involved 8,558 pregnant participants. Each study included 23 to 1,108
participants. No statistically significant differences in maternal age were reported.
All studies required participants to be >18 years old and have singleton pregnancies.
Studies recruited up to 26 weeks of gestation. Two recruited at the first prenatal
visit.[36]
[61] One recruited at the 12th week of clinic.[47] One recruited at 6 to 16 weeks.[38] One required 7 to 21 weeks.[55] One recruited at eight to nine weeks.[46] Two required 8 to 12 weeks.[44]
[45] One required 10 to 14 weeks.[54] One required 10 to 16 weeks.[48] One required 10 to 18 weeks.[34] One required 10 to 20 weeks.[53] Two required <12 weeks.[39]
[56] One required <13 weeks.[33] One required <14 weeks.[37] One required 14 to 24 weeks.[60] Two required < 15 weeks.[40]
[59] One required 15 to 18 weeks.[49] Two required <16 weeks.[41]
[51] One required 16 to 20 weeks.[52] Two required <18 weeks.[50]
[57] One required <20 weeks.[43] One required <24 weeks.[58] One required <26 weeks.[42] Three studies did not report the gestational age requirement for participants.[31]
[32]
[35]
Weight categories included NW (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), OV (BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m2), and women with OB (BMI >30.0). Seventeen studies selected from general population
without BMI specifications.[5]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[42]
[43]
[46]
[48]
[50]
[52]
[54]
[58] Three selected for OV participants.[31]
[47]
[53] Three selected for participants who are OV or have OB.[35]
[44]
[59] Eight selected for participants who have OB.[40]
[45]
[49]
[51]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[60] No significant differences in pre-pregnancy BMI.
Additional inclusion criteria include: nulliparous participants[32]
[37]; secundigravida women previously given birth to macrosomic newborn[32]; women expecting second pregnancy[36]; healthy Caucasian mothers[54]; no structured exercise program (>60 minutes once per week) 6 months before trial[58]; sedentary (exercising for <20 minutes on <3 days/week) before study[61]; not have engaged <3, 30-minute exercise per week for 6 months preceding enrollment,[60] nondiabetic[42]; have at least one of the following risk factors: BMI >25 kg/m2; gestational diabetes mellitus or any signs of glucose intolerance or newborn's macrosomia
(>4,500 g) in early pregnancy; type 1 or 2 diabetes in first- or second-degree relatives;
aged >40 years.[45]
Setting
Based on World Bank classifications from 2017 economy, 28 studies occurred in high-income
countries.[31]
[32]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[61] Three studies occurred in upper middle-income countries.[33]
[39]
[60] No studies occurred in low-income countries.
Eleven studies specified treatment locations: university hospitals[33]
[47]
[51]
[54]
[57]
[59]; regular hospitals[32]
[55]
[56]; eight multiethnic hospitals[49]; obstetric clinic[38]
[60]; and six primary care maternity health clinics.[46] All other studies did not specify treatment locations.
Intervention Implementation
Of the six nutrition-only studies, three focused on low glycemic index (LGI) foods.[32]
[34]
[36] All studies used a food diary to document past eating habits for nutrition plans
and to detail food consumption during the trial. Three provided individual nutrition
plans.[31]
[32]
[33] One provided focused nutritional advice based on the macronutrient composition of
the participant's diet.[33] Three provided participants with lists of healthy foods based on local affordability[35] or LGI foods.[34]
[36] Three provided education in group settings.[34]
[35]
[36] General advice on nutrition, such as a pamphlet, is standard prenatal care and was
not considered a nutrition-only intervention.
Of the seven exercise-only studies, four were supervised and three were unsupervised.
Two studies included three supervised sessions per week,[57]
[60] one required participants to attend at least two sessions per week,[58] and one had one session per week.[60] Three supervised studies also had unsupervised exercise to be completed outside
of the supervised sessions.[56]
[58]
[60] Types of exercise differed based on the study. One advised exercise based on an
expenditure goal of 900 kcal/wk by means of a walking protocol that took place in
five stages of VO2 measured for oxygen cost.[56] A heart rate monitor was provided to track exercise. One was based on a dance class
and core exercises.[58] Two included aerobic and strength exercises.[57]
[60] One also included stretching.[60] One included aerobic, resistance, and core exercises.[61] One utilized pedometers[51] and one provided treadmills.[59] One registered daily steps on 7 consecutive days every 4 weeks and reminded participants
of the recording period starting via text message.[51]
Of the 19 nutrition-plus-exercise studies, 5 included group sessions and 14 provided
one-on-one advice. Thirteen were unsupervised and six were supervised. Of the unsupervised
interventions, three included DVD instructional videos for home exercise.[42]
[43]
[49] Additional implementations included: weight goal setting by the mother,[43]
[49]
[53] extrasupport for individuals not within IOM recommendations in which exercise and
nutritional recommendations were revised,[38]
[39]
[48] food log,[39]
[40]
[43]
[48]
[50] pedometers,[48]
[51] text messages to remind participants when the daily steps recording period of 7
consecutive days every 4 weeks started,[51] profile-II nutritional program with six subscales to measure health behaviors,[39] exercises on reading food labels and shopping methods,[40] used Food Choice Map software,[42]
[43] free fitness membership,[54] heart rate monitors,[52] and calories calculated based on Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)
dietary pattern and reduced by 30% for participants without OB.[55] In addition to meeting the 2009 IOM recommendations, one study had the goal to keep
weight within 3% of their weight at randomization.[55]
[Fig. 2] provides an overview of the study design and characteristics of included studies.
Fig. 2 Characteristics of included studies.
Effects of Interventions
Among the total obstetric population studied, results of studies published after the
2009 IOM guidelines indicate that the nutrition-only intervention produced significant
GWG differences between mean intervention and mean control groups (p = 0.013). Nutrition-plus-exercise (p = 0.056) and exercise-only (p = 0.069) interventions trended toward statistical significance and show potential
to control GWG ([Tables 1] and [2]). ANOVA comparison of GWG between all intervention and control groups produced significant
results (p = 0.001) ([Table 1]).
Table 1
Comparison of GWG (kg)
|
Study or subgroup
|
Intervention
|
Control
|
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Mean
|
SD
|
|
Nutrition
|
|
Di Carlo et al (2014)
|
8.2
|
4.0
|
13.4
|
4.2
|
|
Horan et al (2016)
|
13.3
|
4.5
|
13.7
|
4.9
|
|
Luo et al (2014)
|
7.6
|
1.6
|
12.6
|
4.6
|
|
McGowan et al (2013)
|
11.5
|
4.2
|
12.6
|
4.4
|
|
Quinlivan et al (2011)
|
7.0
|
NR
|
13.8
|
NR
|
|
Walsh and McAuliffe (2015)
|
12.2
|
4.4
|
13.7
|
4.9
|
|
p-Value: 0.013
|
|
|
|
Nutrition plus exercise
|
|
Althuizen et al (2013)
|
11.1
|
3.2
|
11.6
|
4.6
|
|
Asbee et al (2009)
|
13.0
|
5.7
|
16.2
|
7.0
|
|
Aşcı and Rathfisch (2016)
|
12.5
|
5.0
|
12.3
|
4.8
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (1)
|
9.5
|
6.8
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (2)
|
10.6
|
7.0
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
|
Huang et al (2011)
|
14.0
|
2.4
|
16.2
|
3.3
|
|
Hui et al (2012)
|
14.1
|
6.0
|
15.2
|
5.9
|
|
Hui et al (2014)
|
12.9
|
3.7
|
16.2
|
4.4
|
|
Korpi-Hyövälti et al (2011)
|
11.4
|
6.0
|
13.9
|
5.1
|
|
Luoto et al (2011)
|
13.8
|
5.8
|
14.2
|
5.1
|
|
Mustila et al (2012)
|
13.6
|
5.1
|
14.1
|
4.5
|
|
Petrella et al (2014)
|
8.8
|
6.5
|
10.4
|
5.0
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (NW)
|
15.3
|
4.4
|
16.2
|
4.6
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (OV/OB)
|
14.7
|
6.9
|
15.1
|
7.5
|
|
Poston et al (2015)
|
7.2
|
4.6
|
7.8
|
4.6
|
|
Rauh et al (2013)
|
14.1
|
4.1
|
15.6
|
5.8
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
8.6
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (LI)
|
15.3
|
2.9
|
18.3
|
5.3
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (MI)
|
14.9
|
3.8
|
18.3
|
5.3
|
|
Szmeja et al (2014)
|
9.1
|
5.8
|
9.7
|
5.7
|
|
Tanvig et al (2015)
|
7.0
|
NR
|
8.8
|
NR
|
|
Vesco et al (2014)
|
5.0
|
4.1
|
8.4
|
4.7
|
|
p-Value: 0.056
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
10.5
|
NR
|
9.2
|
NR
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
13.0
|
4.0
|
13.8
|
4.0
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OV)
|
10.0
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
10.4
|
5.6
|
10.9
|
7.6
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
9.4
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
12.3
|
3.6
|
13.8
|
4.1
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
11.1
|
4.3
|
11.6
|
4.2
|
|
p-Value: 0.069
|
|
|
|
Supervised exercise
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
10.5
|
10.5
|
9.2
|
NR
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
13.0
|
4.0
|
13.8
|
4.0
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OV)
|
10.0
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
10.4
|
5.6
|
10.9
|
7.6
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
12.3
|
3.6
|
13.8
|
4.1
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
11.1
|
4.3
|
11.6
|
4.2
|
|
p-Value: 0.61
|
|
|
|
Unsupervised exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
9.4
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
p-Value: 0.494
|
|
|
|
Total p-value: 0.0014
|
|
|
Abbreviations: GWG, gestational weight gain; LI, low intensity; MI, moderate intensity;
NR not reported; NW, normal weight; OB, obesity; OV, overweight; SD, standard deviation.
Table 2
Comparison of GWG (kg) for studies that selected participants who are OV or have OB
based on mean pre-pregnancy BMI
|
Study or subgroup
|
Intervention
|
Control
|
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Mean
|
SD
|
|
Nutrition
|
|
Di Carlo et al (2014)
|
8.2
|
4.0
|
13.4
|
4.2
|
|
Quinlivan et al (2011)
|
7.0
|
NR
|
13.8
|
NR
|
|
p-Value: 0.011
|
|
|
|
Nutrition plus exercise
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (1)
|
9.5
|
6.8
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (2)
|
10.6
|
7.0
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
|
Korpi-Hyövälti et al (2011)
|
11.4
|
6.0
|
13.9
|
5.1
|
|
Luoto et al (2011)
|
13.8
|
5.8
|
14.2
|
5.1
|
|
Petrella et al (2014)
|
8.8
|
6.5
|
10.4
|
5.0
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (OV/OB)
|
14.7
|
6.9
|
15.1
|
7.5
|
|
Poston et al (2015)
|
7.2
|
4.6
|
7.8
|
4.6
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
8.6
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
Szmeja et al (2014)
|
9.1
|
5.8
|
9.7
|
5.7
|
|
Tanvig et al (2015)
|
7.0
|
NR
|
8.8
|
NR
|
|
Vesco et al (2014)
|
5.0
|
4.1
|
8.4
|
4.7
|
|
p-Value: 0.129
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
10.5
|
NR
|
9.2
|
NR
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
|
Does not differentiate between OV and obese
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
9.4
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
p-Value: 0.308
|
|
|
|
Supervised exercise
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
10.5
|
NR
|
9.2
|
NR
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
|
p-Value: 0.575
|
|
|
|
Unsupervised exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
9.4
|
NR
|
10.9
|
NR
|
|
p-Value: 0.494
|
|
|
|
Total p-value: 0.0055
|
|
|
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; GWG, gestational weight gain; LI, low intensity;
MI, moderate intensity; NR not reported; NW, normal weight; OB, obesity; OV, overweight;
SD, standard deviation.
Graphically, there is a visually noticeable difference between mean control and mean
intervention GWG for all intervention groups; however, nutrition (p = 0.013) is the only statistically significant health system strategy ([Fig. 3]). Exercise and nutrition plus exercise demonstrated some improvement; however, neither
was statistically significant. When separated into supervised (p = 0.61) and unsupervised (p = 0.494) exercise programs, results were not significant.
Fig. 3 Mean gestational weight gain (GWG) (kg) of health system strategies intervention
groups versus mean GWG control groups.
[Table 3] depicts upper and lower 95% confidence intervals for each study based on population
(N) and standard deviation (SD). [Fig. 4] depicts the forest plot. Not all studies reported number of participants at, above,
or below IOM recommendations, so odds ratio, risk ratio, nor weight could not be calculated.
Fig. 4 Forest plot divided by subgroups.
Table 3
Comparison of mean intervention and control gestational weight gain (kg)
|
Study or subgroup
|
Intervention
|
Control
|
p-Value
|
Mean difference
|
IV, random 95% CI
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
|
Nutrition
|
|
Di Carlo et al (2014)
|
77
|
8.2
|
4.0
|
77
|
13.4
|
4.2
|
<0.001
|
−5.2
|
−6.51, −3.89
|
|
Horan et al (2016)
|
138
|
13.3
|
4.5
|
142
|
13.7
|
4.9
|
0.52
|
−0.4
|
−1.51, 0.71
|
|
Luo et al (2014)
|
131
|
7.6
|
1.6
|
145
|
12.6
|
4.6
|
<0.001
|
−5.0
|
−5.83, −4.17
|
|
McGowan et al (2013)
|
235
|
11.5
|
4.2
|
285
|
12.6
|
4.4
|
0.003
|
−1.1
|
−1.85, −0.35
|
|
Quinlivan et al (2011)
|
63
|
7.0
|
NR
|
61
|
13.8
|
NR
|
<0.001
|
−6.8
|
NR
|
|
Walsh and McAuliffe (2015)
|
235
|
12.2
|
4.4
|
285
|
13.7
|
4.9
|
0.01
|
−1.5
|
−2.31, −0.69
|
|
Total events: 879 (intervention), 995 (standard care)
|
|
Nutrition and exercise
|
|
Althuizen et al (2013)
|
106
|
11.1
|
3.2
|
113
|
11.6
|
4.6
|
NR[a]
|
−0.5
|
−1.56, 0.56
|
|
Asbee et al (2009)
|
57
|
13.0
|
5.7
|
43
|
16.2
|
7.0
|
<0.01
|
−3.2
|
−5.72, −0.68
|
|
Aşcı and Rathfisch (2016)
|
45
|
12.5
|
5.0
|
45
|
12.3
|
4.8
|
0.001
|
0.2
|
−1.85, 2.25
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (1)
|
58
|
9.5
|
6.8
|
63
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
0.04
|
−4.0
|
−6.55, −1.45
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (2)
|
76
|
10.6
|
7.0
|
63
|
13.5
|
7.3
|
0.008
|
−2.9
|
−5.30, −0.50
|
|
Huang et al (2011)
|
61
|
14.0
|
2.4
|
64
|
16.2
|
3.3
|
<0.001
|
−2.2
|
−3.23, −1.17
|
|
Hui et al (2012)
|
102
|
14.1
|
6.0
|
88
|
15.2
|
5.9
|
0.28
|
−1.1
|
−2.81, 0.61
|
|
Hui et al (2014)
|
30
|
12.9
|
3.7
|
27.0
|
16.2
|
4.4
|
<0.05
|
−3.3
|
−5.45, −1.15
|
|
Korpi-Hyövälti et al (2011)
|
27
|
11.4
|
6.0
|
27.0
|
13.9
|
5.1
|
0.062
|
−2.5
|
−5.54, 0.54
|
|
Luoto et al (2011)
|
219
|
13.8
|
5.8
|
180
|
14.2
|
5.1
|
0.52
|
−0.4
|
−1.49, 0.96
|
|
Petrella et al (2014)
|
33
|
8.8
|
6.5
|
30
|
10.4
|
5.0
|
0.032
|
−1.6
|
−4.54, 1.34
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (NW)
|
92
|
15.3
|
4.4
|
94
|
16.2
|
4.6
|
0.003
|
−0.9
|
−2.20, 0.40
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (OV/OB)
|
87
|
14.7
|
6.9
|
90
|
15.1
|
7.5
|
0.33
|
−0.4
|
−2.54, 1.74
|
|
Poston et al (2015)
|
526
|
7.2
|
4.6
|
567
|
7.8
|
4.6
|
0.041
|
−0.6
|
−1.15, −0.05
|
|
Rauh et al (2013)
|
152
|
14.1
|
4.1
|
72
|
15.6
|
5.8
|
0.035
|
−1.5
|
−2.83, −0.17
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
142
|
8.6
|
NR
|
141
|
10.9
|
NR
|
0.008
|
−2.3
|
NR
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (LI)
|
23
|
15.3
|
2.9
|
45
|
18.3
|
5.3
|
0.01
|
−3.0
|
−5.37, −0.63
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (MI)
|
26
|
14.9
|
3.8
|
45
|
18.3
|
5.3
|
0.003
|
−3.4
|
−5.76, −1.04
|
|
Szmeja et al (2014)
|
543
|
9.1
|
5.8
|
565
|
9.7
|
5.7
|
0.13
|
−0.6
|
−1.28, 0.08
|
|
Tanvig et al (2015)
|
77
|
7.0
|
NR
|
73
|
8.8
|
NR
|
0.01
|
−1.8
|
NR
|
|
Vesco et al (2014)
|
56
|
5.0
|
4.1
|
58
|
8.4
|
4.7
|
<0.001
|
−3.4
|
−5.04, −1.76
|
|
Total events: 2,538 (intervention), 2,493 (standard care)
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
12
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
NR[a]
|
−1.0
|
−5.77, 3.77
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
46
|
10.5
|
NR
|
45
|
9.2
|
NR
|
0.35
|
−1.3
|
NR
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
52
|
13.0
|
4.0
|
53
|
13.8
|
4.0
|
0.31
|
−0.8
|
−2.35, 0.75
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
9
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
0.859
|
0.6
|
−5.16, 6.36
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
9
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
10
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
0.859
|
−0.4
|
−8.87, 8.07
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
39
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
41
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
0.543
|
−6.1
|
−7.45, −4.75
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OV)
|
9
|
10.0
|
1.7
|
5
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
0.001
|
−6.4
|
−9.61, −3.19
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
30
|
10.4
|
5.6
|
36
|
10.9
|
7.6
|
0.757
|
−0.5
|
−3.84, 2.84
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
142
|
9.4
|
NR
|
141
|
10.9
|
NR
|
0.042
|
−1.5
|
NR
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
335
|
12.3
|
3.6
|
352
|
13.8
|
4.1
|
<0.001
|
−1.5
|
−2.08, −0.92
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
146
|
11.1
|
4.3
|
129
|
11.6
|
4.2
|
0.51
|
−0.5
|
−1.51, 0.51
|
|
Total events: 790 (intervention), 791 (standard care)
|
|
Supervised exercise
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
46
|
10.5
|
10.5
|
45
|
9.2
|
NR
|
0.35
|
1.3
|
NR
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
52
|
13.0
|
4.0
|
53
|
13.8
|
4.0
|
0.31
|
−0.8
|
−2.35, 0.75
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
39
|
10.3
|
1.7
|
41
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
0.543
|
−6.1
|
−7.45, −4.75
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OV)
|
9
|
10.0
|
1.7
|
5
|
16.4
|
3.9
|
0.001
|
−6.4
|
−9.61, −3.19
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
30
|
10.4
|
5.6
|
36
|
10.9
|
7.6
|
0.757
|
−0.5
|
−3.84, 2.84
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
335
|
12.3
|
3.6
|
352
|
13.8
|
4.1
|
<0.001
|
−1.5
|
−2.08, −0.92
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
146
|
11.1
|
4.3
|
129
|
11.6
|
4.2
|
0.51
|
−0.5
|
−1.51, 0.51
|
|
Total events: 657 (intervention), 661 (standard care)
|
|
Unsupervised exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
12
|
10.8
|
5.1
|
11
|
11.8
|
5.9
|
NR[a]
|
−1.0
|
−5.77, 3.77
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
9
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
9
|
9.9
|
6.1
|
0.859
|
0.6
|
−5.16, 6.36
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
9
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
10
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
0.859
|
−0.4
|
−8.87, 8.07
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
142
|
9.4
|
NR
|
141
|
10.9
|
NR
|
0.042
|
−1.5
|
NR
|
|
Total events: 172 (intervention), 171 (standard care)
|
|
Overall total events: 4
,
207 (
i
ntervention), 4
,
279 (
standard care)
|
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LI, low intensity; MI, moderate intensity;
NR not reported; NW, normal weight; OB, obesity; OV, overweight; SD, standard deviation.
a Stated as insignificant.
Eight studies categorized based on pre-pregnancy BMI and analyzed whether mean GWG,
as adjusted for BMI, fell below, within, or above IOM recommendations. Three of 8
(37.5%) exercise-only, 3 of 6 (50%) nutrition-only, and 15 of 22 (68.18%) nutrition-plus-exercise
interventions were within the IOM GWG recommendations. Compared with control groups
within IOM, 3 of 8 (37.5%) exercise-only, 1 of 8 (12.5%) nutrition-only, and 6 of
22 (27.27%) nutrition-plus-exercise interventions produced GWG within IOM recommendation.
For one of the nutrition-plus-exercise studies, the control GWG fell below the IOM
recommendation.[37]
Of the studies that reported percentage of participants exceeding IOM, 2 of 2 (100%)
nutrition only, 9 of 13 (69.23%) nutrition plus exercise, and 4 of 6 (66.67%) exercise
only reported that women in the intervention group exceeded the IOM recommendations
less than control group. One exercise-only study on mothers with OB reported the same
percentage exceeding IOM for intervention and control groups[59] ([Table 4]).
Table 4
Per cent participants that exceed IOM recommendations
|
Study or subgroup
|
Intervention
|
Control
|
|
Nutrition
|
|
Di Carlo et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Horan et al (2016)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Luo et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
McGowan et al (2013)
|
33.2
|
44.7
|
|
Quinlivan et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Walsh and McAuliffe (2015)
|
37.7
|
47.9
|
|
Nutrition plus exercise
|
|
Althuizen et al (2013)
|
70.4
|
72.4
|
|
Asbee et al (2009)
|
61.4
|
48.8
|
|
Aşcı and Rathfisch (2016)
|
51.1
|
28.9
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (1)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Bogaerts et al (2013) (2)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Huang et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Hui et al (2012)
|
35.2
|
54.5
|
|
Hui et al (2014)
|
10
|
37
|
|
Korpi-Hyövälti et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Luoto et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Mustila et al (2012)
|
35.5
|
27.0
|
|
Petrella et al (2014)
|
33.3
|
60.8
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (NW)
|
40.2
|
52.1
|
|
Phelan et al (2011) (OV/OB)
|
66.7
|
61.1
|
|
Poston et al (2015)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Rauh et al (2013)
|
38.2
|
59.5
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (LI)
|
35
|
53
|
|
Ruchat et al (2012) (MI)
|
31
|
53
|
|
Szmeja et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Tanvig et al (2015)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Vesco et al (2014)
|
44
|
82
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
58.3
|
44.4
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
33
|
38
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
44.4
|
50
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
77.8
|
77.8
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
47
|
57
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OV)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
23.8
|
32
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Supervised exercise
|
|
Garnæs et al (2016)
|
58.3
|
44.4
|
|
Haakstad and Bø (2011)
|
33
|
38
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011)
|
47
|
57
|
|
Nascimento el al (2011) (OV)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Nascimento et al (2011) (OB)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (NW)
|
23.8
|
32
|
|
Ruiz et al (2013) (OV/OB)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Unsupervised exercise
|
|
Byrne et al (2011)
|
NR
|
NR
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OV)
|
44.4
|
50
|
|
Kong et al (2014) (OB)
|
77.8
|
77.8
|
|
Renault et al (2014)
|
NR
|
NR
|
Abbreviations: IOM, Institute of Medicine; LI, low intensity; MI, moderate intensity;
NR not reported; NW, normal weight; OB, obesity; OV, overweight.
Participants Who Are Overweight and/or Have Obesity
Additional analysis was completed on studies that selected for participants who are
OV or have OB ([Table 2]). When examined individually, 2 of 2 nutrition only (100%), 7 of 10 nutrition plus
exercise (70%), and 1 of 6 exercise only produced significant results (16.67%). One
of two supervised and one of four unsupervised exercise produced significant results.
Like the overall analyses, nutrition-only strategy was significant (p = 0.011). Overall, comparison between all interventions and controls was significant
(p = 0.004) in this population.
Exercise Interventions
Three studies reported statistically significant differences in mean GWG[51]
[60]
[61] ([Table 3]). Five of eight studies subjects selected for pre-pregnancy BMI as obese or OV.[51]
[56]
[57]
[59]
[60] These studies produced GWG greater than IOM recommendation for both control and
intervention groups, except when Kong et al (2014) was divided into participants with
OV and OB; OV individuals had mean GWG within IOM recommendations. Three studies did
not have BMI specifications and were classified as NW with GWG within IOM.[52]
[58]
[61]
Studies were then divided into subgroups where exercise was either supervised or unsupervised.
To be a supervised intervention, exercise must be performed under the supervision
of a personal trainer or by attendance at an exercise class. Neither supervised (p = 0.61) nor unsupervised (p = 0.494) programs produced significant results. However, mean GWG for unsupervised
intervention (10.7 kg) and control (11.275 kg) groups was lower than supervised (11.44
kg) intervention and control (12.96 kg) groups.
Nutrition Interventions
Five of six studies reported statistically significant differences in mean GWG[31]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[52] ([Table 3]). Two studies selected subjects with OV or obese pre-pregnancy BMI.[31]
[35] The results of three studies demonstrated that the intervention group's average
GWG was within IOM and the average GWG of control group exceed IOM.[31]
[34]
[35] All control groups' GWG exceeded IOM, except one that was within IOM recommendations.[34] One intervention group's GWG was below IOM recommendations.[33]
Combination of Exercise-Plus-Nutrition Interventions
Thirteen of 19 studies reported statistically significant differences in mean GWG[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[43]
[47]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[54]
[55] ([Table 3]). Three underwent multiple analyses. When divided into subgroups, interventions
1 and 2,[40] NW participants[48] and both LI and MI exercise programs were significant.[52] Ten studies selected participants with OV or obese pre-pregnancy BMI.[40]
[44]
[45]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[51]
[53]
[54]
[55] Of these studies, six interventions and three control groups were within IOM recommendations.
All NW subjects produced GWG within the IOM recommendations for the intervention group.[37]
[39]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[46]
[48]
[50]
Discussion
Based on results of this meta-analysis, nutrition-only interventions were associated
with statistically significant lower rates of excessive GWG and therefore have the
highest probability of helping women achieve target IOM GWG guidelines (p = 0.013). Exercise-only (p = 0.069) and nutrition-plus-exercise (p = 0.056) interventions have potential to control GWG, but results did not reach statistical
significance in the current study. In comparison to the Cochrane Review findings of
studies published before the 2009 IOM guidelines which found all three intervention
groups reduced GWG, the current meta-analysis study found that studies which utilized
the 2009 IOM guidelines were more likely to produced reduced GWG with nutrition-only
interventions. Nonsignificant findings from exercise and nutrition-plus-exercise health
system strategies may be due to the inclusion of different exercise types. Exercise
programs varied. Some included advice about exercise or discussed increased amount
of physical activity, while others were more interventional, such as supervised dance
programs or recommending a certain number of steps per day. The way in which these
steps were achieved may and most likely differed between participants. Despite different
nutritional advice, interventions universally recommend increased amounts of fruits
and vegetables, and decreased consumption of food with high fat and sugar content.
Additionally, retention to exercise programs may be more difficult than nutrition
programs because one must eat to live, but exercise is not a fundamental need.
Previous studies have addressed the ability to control GWG and prevent weight exceeding
IOM recommendations with mixed results. Since the study search for this article was
completed, additional studies have been published with inconsistent results. Nutrition-only
studies of the general population and of women who are OV/OB concur that nutrition-only
interventions make significant differences for controlling GWG.[6]
[7]
[8] Walker et al's (2018) meta-analysis of general population concerning nutrition only,
exercise only, and nutrition plus exercise claimed nutrition-only interventions are
the best method to control GWG. Lamminpää et al's (2017) meta-analysis of OV/OB women
only analyzed nutrition-only interventions because of previous reporting this as the
best method. This meta-analysis found that nutrition-only results vary because of
adherence inconsistency. Exercise-only interventions produced significant results
for both general population[10]
[17]
[27]
[28]
[29] and OV/OB except for one study.[10] Nutrition-plus-exercise interventions for general population were statistically
significant.[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Nutrition plus exercise for OV/OB were inconsistent, including a meta-analysis determining
nutrition plus exercise as insignificant impact on GWG.[20] Due to the variability of these findings, it is challenging to make a consensus
regarding which intervention is best for clinical use. The results of this study confer
with other studies that nutrition-only interventions are the best method to control
GWG.
