





































ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 
 

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND 

PAIN DURING PREGNANCY 
 

SARAH VELEZ, DR. TRACI MCCARTHY, DR. ANDREA 

SPAETH 

 

✵ ABSTRACT 
Low back and pelvic girdle pain are preva-

lent during pregnancy, impacting about 50% of 

pregnant women. Previous studies conducted on 

the general population have suggested that physi-

cal activity has been associated with reductions in 

pain levels. 

PURPOSE: To determine if pregnant women 

with higher levels of physical activity experience less 

low back and pelvic girdle pain than women who 

are less physically active during pregnancy. 

METHODS: Pregnant women (n=24, 31.6  4.2 

years) were recruited between 28- and 32-weeks 

gestation. Participants reported their weekly physi-

cal activity, responded to subjective pain surveys, 

and underwent a battery of objective pain testing. 

Spearman’s-rho was used to assess correlations be-

tween physical activity scores and each subject’s in-

dividual pain measure. 

RESULTS: Tests for correlation between phys-

ical activity scores during pregnancy and pain do-

main measures were not significant (p>0.05), so no 

relationship could be determined between physical 

activity levels and low back/pelvic girdle pain based 

on this study. 

CONCLUSION: This study was not able to iden-

tify a significant correlation between physical activ-

ity levels and low back/pelvic girdle pain during 

pregnancy. 

 

1  INTRODUCTION 
Low back pain (LBP) and pelvic girdle pain 

(PGP) affect roughly 50% of women during preg-

nancy, beginning between gestational weeks 12 

and 24 (Gutke et al., 2015). Gestational weeks are 

used to measure the age of a pregnancy, with 

counting beginning on the first day of the woman’s 

last menstrual period before conception (Jukic et 

al., 2012). A change in a woman’s center of gravity 

during pregnancy may cause increased lordosis of 

the lumbar spine, which is an inward curve that vis-

ually presents as a swayback posture that places in-

creased pressure on the spine and may cause pain 

(Kawabe et al., 2022; "Physical Activity and Exercise 

During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period: 

ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 804," 2020). 

While issues with low back and pelvic girdle pain are 

often resolved postpartum, 43% of women report 

persistent PGP 6 months postpartum, and 20% of 

women report persistent pain 3 years postpartum 

(Gutke et al., 2015). It is important to find ways to 

alleviate LBP and PGP during and after pregnancy, 

as this may improve the quality of life for affected 

women. 

Low back pain, which is described as pain 

felt below the 12th rib and above the gluteal folds, is 

a widespread issue affecting 60-85% of the general 

population at some point in their lives (Krismer et al., 

2007). About 85% of LBP cases are non-specific, 

meaning they cannot be explained by a pathology 

(van den Berg et al., 2018). Specific LBP accounts for 

roughly 5-10% of all LBP cases and may be initiated 

by trauma, psychological factors, or disease 

(Krismer et al., 2007). PGP is less widespread in the 

general population, as it is most common during 

pregnancy (Ando & Ohashi, 2009). PGP is pain or 

discomfort in the pelvic area of the musculoskeletal 

system (Engeset et al., 2014), either in the area of 

the pubic symphysis or between the posterior iliac 

crest and gluteal folds (Weis et al., 2018). The areas 

affected by low back pain and pelvic girdle pain are 

highlighted in FIGURE 1. Both LBP and PGP can be 

measured either subjectively or objectively. Objec-

tive measurement techniques, such as the Straight 

Leg Raise test for low back pathology, are per-

formed by the principal investigator to physically 

test for pain in the participant. Subjective measure-

ment techniques, such as self-reported pain ratings 

through questionnaires including the numeric rat-

ing scale and the Oswestry Disability Index 

(Chiarotto et al., 2019) are most common.  



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

 

FIGURE 1: Areas of low back pain and pelvic girdle pain 

(Dunn et al., 2019). 

 

Physical activity (PA) refers to movement in-

itiated by muscle contractions, thereby expending 

energy beyond what is required in a resting state 

(Fletcher et al., 2018). According to the 2008 Physi-

cal Activity Guidelines for Americans, PA must in-

clude either 150 minutes of moderate intensity or 75 

minutes of vigorous PA per week (Fletcher et al., 

2018). PA has a multitude of health benefits for the 

general population, especially in cases of LBP; PA is 

often prescribed as a method of prevention or relief 

due to its analgesic, or pain relieving, effects 

(Hodges & Smeets, 2015). A proposed mechanism 

is that PA contributes to the relief of pain by releas-

ing catecholamines, which suppress the activity of 

the pain response in the spinal cord, thereby im-

proving overall motor control (Hodges & Smeets, 

2015). This concept is demonstrated by a proposed 

U-shape relationship between LBP and PA, which 

shows that pain is highest at the lowest activity lev-

els, then decreases as PA approaches a moderate 

level, and then increases again as PA becomes in-

creasingly intense (Heneweer et al., 2009). This rela-

tionship reflects the concept that the recommended 

150 minutes of moderate intensity PA per week may 

reduce LBP.  

PA during pregnancy presents many of the 

same benefits as for the general population, includ-

ing improved cardiovascular health, reduced mus-

culoskeletal pain, and the maintenance of a healthy 

body weight (Melzer et al., 2010). However, many 

pregnant women assume a more sedentary lifestyle, 

with less than 38% of women meeting the American 

College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists PA 

guidelines of 20-30 minutes of moderate activity on 

most days per week, or a cumulative total of 150 

minutes per week (Walters et al., 2021). With some 

precautions, PA has been found to be safe and ben-

eficial for the mother and fetus. As previously men-

tioned, a change in the woman’s center of gravity 

may result in a balance shift and increased risk of 

falling during activities that challenge balance. Pre-

cautions should also be taken to avoid supine posi-

tions, in which a woman is lying on her back facing 

up. In a supine position, the enlarged size of the 

uterus places increased pressure on the aorta and 

vena cava of the heart, potentially impeding venous 

return of blood to the heart and ultimately resulting 

in low blood pressure ("Physical Activity and 

Exercise During Pregnancy and the Postpartum 

Period: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 804," 

2020).  In addition, it was found that women who are 

given a safe, approved exercise routine and fitness 

counseling experience reduced LBP and are more 

likely to adhere to PA guidelines than women who 

do not receive such guidance (Ozdemir et al., 2015). 

This trend suggests that a lack of education regard-

ing the safety of exercise during pregnancy may be 

contributing, in part, to physical inactivity during 

pregnancy. For this reason, participants in this study 

are provided with educational materials at the con-

clusion of the study, with safe exercises to perform 

during and after pregnancy which may help with low 

back and pelvic girdle pain. Continued education 

regarding the safety of exercise during pregnancy, 

as well as professionals deeming certain exercises 

safe for the mother and fetus, may result in less hes-

itation to exercise and allow women to benefit from 

reduced pain. 

PA levels typically decrease during preg-

nancy, and LBP and PGP increases (Ha et al., 2019; 

Walters et al., 2021). The nature of this relationship 

is unclear, so this topic requires more investigation 

to determine if there is a strong correlation between 

PA levels and pain during pregnancy. The objective 

of this study is to use subjective measures of pain to 

determine if women with higher levels of PA during 

pregnancy experience less pain and lower disability 

scores than women who are less physically active 

during pregnancy. If a correlation is found, there is 



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

potential to reduce future cases of LBP and PGP by 

educating women on the safety and importance of 

PA during pregnancy.  

 

2 METHODS 
STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS  

The study was an observational study con-

ducted through the Department of Kinesiology and 

Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jer-

sey. The study was approved by the Rutgers Univer-

sity Institutional Review Board (PRO2021000624) 

and took place from November 2021 through Sep-

tember 2022. Participants were recruited from the 

New Brunswick, New Jersey area through posting 

fliers in women’s health clinics, fitness centers, Rut-

gers University buildings, and on social media. In-

terested participants were contacted by the princi-

pal investigator and screened for eligibility over the 

phone. Participants were eligible if they were less 

than 28 weeks pregnant at the time of the screening 

in preparation for participation starting at 28 weeks 

pregnant. Participants also needed to be between 

the ages of 18 and 40 years, understand the study 

procedures, agree to adhere to the study require-

ments for 2 weeks, and agree to attend 3 sessions, 

each spaced one week apart from each other. 

The exclusion criteria were: severe back 

pain or back surgery prior to pregnancy, a diag-

nosed sleep disorder, a contraindication to partici-

pating in moderate exercise (severe anemia, cardiac 

dysrhythmia, chronic bronchitis, uncontrolled Dia-

betes Mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, heart 

disease, restrictive lung disease, etc.), a multiple-

pregnancy in which there is more than one fetus, 

low body weight (BMI<18) or extreme obesity 

(BMI>40) prior to becoming pregnant, or preg-

nancy complications (premature labor, placenta 

previa, poor fetal growth, premature rupture of 

membranes, preeclampsia, uterine growth retarda-

tion, incompetent cervix, persistent vaginal bleed-

ing, anemia, or gestational diabetes).  

Forty-six participants expressed interest in 

this study; thirty-four participants were screened 

based on eligibility, twenty-five consented to partic-

ipate, and one dropped out after the initial consent. 

Twenty-four participants were included in this anal-

ysis (see FIGURE 2 for Consort Flow Diagram). Partici-

pants had a mean age of 32.2  4.1 years, and a 

mean pre-pregnancy BMI of 23.2  6.0 (TABLE 1). 

 

 

FIGURE 2: Consort flow diagram displaying participant enrollment and exclusion. 

  



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

Variable M±SD or f 

Age (years) 31.6 ± 4.2  

Pre-Pregnancy BMI (kg/m2) 24.2 ± 3.6 

Parity  

Nulliparous 

Multiparous 

 

16 

12 

Race 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Black or African-American 

Caucasian 

Hispanic/Latinx   

 

1 

1 

20 

6 

Education 

Grade 12 or GED 

1-3 years after high school or tech-

nical school 

4 years or more (college graduate) 

Advanced degree 

Prefer not to answer 

 

0 

2 

 

11 

14 

1 

Household Income 

<$25,000 

$25,000-34,999 

$35,000-49,999 

$50,000-74,999 

$75,000-99,999 

$100,000-149,999 

$150,000-199,999 

>$200,000 

Prefer not to answer 

 

1 

0 

0 

4 

2 

6 

8 

2 

5 

Employment 

Full time 

Part time 

Hourly 

Not employed 

 

16 

3 

2 

7 

Marital Status  

Married 

Divorced 

Widowed 

Separated 

Never married 

Living with partner 

Prefer not to answer 

 

22 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

TABLE 1: Demographic information for the 24 participants. 

Eligible participants were required to re-

ceive medical clearance prior to their first visit. Once 

clearance was obtained, participants were sched-

uled to begin between 28-32 weeks gestation. Par-

ticipants underwent an informed consent process at 

the beginning of their first visit.  

 

MEASURES 

After consenting to participate in the study 

at their first visit, participants completed question-

naires regarding pain and physical activity. Pain was 

assessed using the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS) 

(Hawker et al., 2011), Oswestry Disability Index 

(ODI) (Fairbank & Pynsent, 2000), Pelvic Girdle 

Questionnaire (PGQ) (Stuge et al., 2011), and the 

Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) 

(Grotle et al., 2012). For NPS-best and NPS-worst, 

the participant was asked to state their best and 

worst pain levels on a scale of 0-10, with 0 being no 

pain and 10 being the worst pain possible. The ODI 

questionnaire inquired about pain intensity during 

various lifestyle activities with scores ranging from 

0-50, higher scores reflecting more low back disa-

bility. In the PGQ, participants rated the extent to 

which pain interfered with their life, with 0 being no 

interference and 3 being considerable interference 

due to PGP. Their scores in various categories were 

summed and ranged from 0-100, with higher scores 

reflecting more disability. The FABQ assessed par-

ticipants’ perception of pain during PA by asking the 

extent to with they agree or disagree with 5 state-

ments. This score summarizes the patient’s fear-

avoidance beliefs about PA and ranges from 0-50, 

with higher scores reflecting more avoidance be-

liefs. A follow up question inquired about pain man-

agement techniques including medication, physical 

therapy, chiropractic care, use of marijuana, alcohol, 

or other holistic measure.  

Participants also completed the Pregnancy 

Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ), in which 

they recorded the type, duration, and frequency of 

their PA over the past trimester (Papazian et al., 

2020). The PPAQ provides an estimation of weekly 

metabolic equivalent (MET)/minutes and splits it 

into multiple domains including total activity, exer-

cise activity, leisure activity, and work-related 



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

activity. METs are used to quantify the energy cost 

of an activity, which is calculated by taking the quo-

tient of two values: the relative oxygen cost of a 

physical activity and the consumption of oxygen by 

the body at rest. Weekly metabolic minutes for each 

participant are estimated based on these domains 

and summed, with more metabolic minutes repre-

senting greater PA levels. 

 

PROCEDURES 

Next, the principal investigator and a li-

censed physical therapist conducted a physical 

screen. Baseline vitals (heart rate, blood pressure 

and oxygen saturation) and anthropometrics 

(height and weight) were obtained, a posture as-

sessment was performed to check the alignment of 

the spine, and then a battery of pain provocative 

tests was conducted to obtain objective pain 

measures, with positive results signaling the pres-

ence of some pain or pathology and negative re-

sults signifying the absence of pathology in this 

area. The Straight Leg Raise Test (SLR) tests for low 

back pathology (Scaia et al., 2012); if positive, the 

Bowstring Test is performed to isolate the sciatic 

nerve and determine whether the nerve is contrib-

uting to the low back pathology (Berthelot et al., 

2021). The Slump Test then places the participant in 

a flexed position to test for neuromeningeal tension, 

which is tension of the nerve roots of the spinal cord. 

If this test is positive, this suggests that LBP may be 

originating from pressure on the nerves and possi-

ble meningeal inflammation (Berthelot et al., 2021). 

Then four additional tests are performed to test for 

pelvic girdle pain: The Posterior Pelvic Pain Provo-

cation Test (PPPP) (Albert et al., 2000), the Flexion 

Abduction External Rotation Test (FABER) (Cook et 

al., 2007), the Compression Test (Cook et al., 2007), 

and the Distraction Test (Cook et al., 2007). These 

tests were chosen to be performed together be-

cause they are commonly used in physical therapy 

due to their high validity and reliability when deter-

mining LBP and PGP. They also have the ability to 

differentiate between LBP and PGP, which allows for 

comparison between these objective results and 

the results of the subjective pain surveys, which 

inquired about each type of pain separately (Cook 

et al., 2007). 

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

The data was analyzed using an SPSS soft-

ware. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard de-

viations for demographic characteristics and pain 

surveys and frequencies for objective pain 

measures [SLR Test, Slump Test, PPPP Test, FABER, 

Compression Test, and Distraction Test]) were con-

ducted and are presented in TABLES 1 AND 2 and FIGURE 

3. Tests of normality were conducted for all varia-

bles, and Spearman’s-rho was used to assess corre-

lations (FIGURE 4) between PA scores (PPAQ) and 

each subjective pain measure (NPS, ODI, PGQ, 

FABQ); the significance was set to p<0.05. A power 

analysis was conducted as part of the primary study 

to approximate a sample size of 48 participants to-

tal, and this secondary analysis was conducted at 

the halfway point with the first 24 participants. 

 

3 RESULTS 
The PPAQ had a mean of 750.26 ± 365.4 

MET/min. The ODI had a mean score of 11.67 ± 9.04 

out of a maximum score of 50 which reflects the 

worst pain. Using existing thresholds outlined in the 

ODI, seven out of the twenty-four participants were 

categorized as having moderate low back disability 

which may interfere with activities of daily living, due 

to their score falling between 15 and 24. The PGQ 

had a mean score of 16.04 ± 15.98 out of a maxi-

mum score of 100. The FABQ had a mean of score 

of 7.58 ± 6.52 out of a maximum score of 50 (TABLE 

2). 

Out of the total twenty-four participants, 

twenty-two participants (91.7%) had a negative SLR 

Test, twenty-two participants (91.7%) had a negative 

FABER Test, eighteen participants (75%) had a neg-

ative PPPP Test, nineteen participants (79.2%) had a 

negative compression test, twenty-one participants 

(87.5%) had a negative distraction test, and twenty-

three participants (95.8%) had a negative Slump test 

(FIGURE 3). 

The correlations between pregnancy PA 

scores (PPAQ) and pain and disability measures 

(NPS-best, NPS-worst, ODI, PGQ, and FABQ) were 



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

not significant (p>0.05, FIGURE 4). There was a posi-

tive trend between PPAQ and NPS-best and NPS-

worst, which suggests that general pain ratings in-

creased as PA minutes increased. There was also a 

positive trend between PPAQ and ODI and FABQ 

scores, which suggests that LBP increased as weekly 

PA minutes increased. There was a negative trend 

between PPAQ and the PGQ, suggesting that PGP 

decreased as weekly PA minutes increased. The di-

rection of the trend between PA minutes and LBP 

scores was opposite of the direction of the trend be-

tween PA minutes and PGP; however, none of these 

trends were significant. 

 

Surveys Mean 
Standard 

Deviation 

Pregnancy Physical 

Activity Questionnaire 
750.26 365.40 

Oswestry Disability In-

dex 
11.67 9.04 

Pelvic Girdle Ques-

tionnaire 
16.04 6.52 

Fear Avoidance Be-

liefs Questionnaire 
7.58 6.52 

TABLE 2: Descriptive statistic for subjective surveys. 

 

 
FIGURE 3: Frequency of negative results on each objective 

pain provocation test. 

 

 
FIGURE 4A: No correlation between NPS-Best pain and 

weekly physical activity minutes (r (24) = 0.343, p = 0.10). 

 

 
FIGURE 4B: No correlation between NPS-Worst pain and 

weekly physical activity minutes (r (24) = 0.111, p= 0.6). 

 

 
FIGURE 4C: No correlation between ODI pain scores and 

weekly physical activity minutes (r (24) = 0.92, p = 0.67). 

 



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

 
FIGURE 4D: No correlation between ODI pain scores and 

weekly physical activity minutes (r (24) = 0.92, p = 0.67). 

 

 
FIGURE 4E: No correlation between FABQ scores and 

weekly physical activity minutes (r (24) = 0.195, p = 0.36). 

 

4 DISCUSSION 
The objective of this study was to determine 

whether women with higher levels of PA experience 

less LBP and PGP, because such a discovery would 

have the potential to improve quality of life during 

pregnancy. However, an analysis of subjective pain 

levels compared to cumulative PA per week did not 

yield significant results.  

This lack of a correlation was an unexpected 

result, as past studies conducted on the general 

population found higher levels of PA to be associ-

ated with pain relief (Hodges & Smeets, 2015). This 

was expected to translate to the pregnant popula-

tion, since another study found that women who 

were given fitness counseling during pregnancy 

had less LBP (Ozdemir et al., 2015). The unexpected 

result found in this study may be due to the physical 

changes that occur during pregnancy that differ 

from the general population. Pregnancy causes a 

forward shift in a woman’s center of gravity, result-

ing in altered posture (Kawabe et al., 2022). Women 

who scored higher on the PPAQ likely spend more 

time on their feet throughout the day, and this al-

tered posture may put additional pressure on their 

low back, resulting in pain (Kawabe et al., 2022). 

This reasoning is consistent with the positive trend-

lines seen in FIGURES 3 A, B, C, AND E, which demon-

strated that subjective pain scores increased as 

PPAQ scores increased. 

This study also included a battery of objec-

tive pain assessments which were analyzed in con-

junction with the subjective pain reports from the 

five questionnaires. One study investigating PGP 

specifically found that subjective reports of LPB and 

PGP lack diagnostic value, since women may be un-

able to distinguish between LBP and PGP (Ando & 

Ohashi, 2009). The PPPP test can make this distinc-

tion, which emphasizes the value of using the results 

of objective pain provocation tests when interpret-

ing subjective pain reports. As shown in FIGURE 3, 

there was a high frequency of negative results on 

each objective pain test, despite patients reporting 

pain subjectively. The fact that participants reported 

pain but did not physically test positive for pain is 

consistent with the fact that subjective reports have 

limited diagnostic value, and this may have contrib-

uted to the lack of a correlation found in this statisti-

cal analysis. This discrepancy between subjective 

reports and objective tests may also be due to the 

time of day at which pain provocation tests were 

performed. It has been found that pregnant women 

experience higher levels of pain towards the even-

ing compared to the morning (Eggen et al.). When 

women complete subjective surveys, this high level 

of pain may be what they report. However, since 

most objective testing took place in the morning or 

afternoon when women tend to experience less 

pain, the pain provocation tests may have failed to 

reflect pain that exists in the evening, contributing 

to the unexpected result of this study.  

A strength of this study was the use of both 

objective and subjective measures to score LBP and 

PGP. This study used a variety of subjective pain 

tests, one specifically focusing on overall pain at its 

best and worst, one focusing on LBP, one focusing 



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

on PGP, and one focusing on fear and avoidance 

behaviors due to pain. This range of pain question-

naires gave a comprehensive view of subjective 

pain reports. The data from the objective pain tests 

was collected to be analyzed later as a component 

of the primary study, so it was not included in the 

statistical analysis of this secondary study. However, 

the raw data from these objective tests gave addi-

tional context and aided in the interpretation of the 

results of this analysis. 

A limitation of this study was its subjective 

collection of cumulative PA data, rather than objec-

tive isolation of structured exercise. The study was 

designed this way to accommodate participants 

with physically active occupations such as a nursing. 

Since these women get most of their PA at work ra-

ther than through designated exercise, only inquir-

ing about structured exercise minutes would not 

have properly reflected their activity levels. How-

ever, women who perform designated exercise with 

the goal of improving muscular fitness may 

strengthen the musculature in the back, therefore 

creating a better support structure to combat the 

natural postural changes during pregnancy. There-

fore, structured exercise may be an important meas-

ure to include. Women with such varying training 

statuses are also likely to have varying perceptions 

of pain, which is another factor which may have con-

tributed to these unexpected results. In addition, 

this analysis was a secondary analysis, stemming 

from a study comparing active women who meet 

the American College of Obstetricians and Gyne-

cologists’ guideline of 150 minutes/week of PA to 

sedentary women who engage in less than 90 

minutes/week of PA. Women who reported weekly 

PA minutes between 90 and 150 were not included, 

since they did not fall within either group. Therefore, 

this analysis did not have a continuous sample, 

which is a limitation of the study. Finally, this analysis 

was conducted at the halfway point of the main 

study. The final sample will include approximately 

48 participants, which may show a more accurate 

representation of relationships between PA and 

LBP/PGP.  

 

 

5 CONCLUSION 
The aim of this study was to identify a corre-

lation between PA levels and LBP/PGP during preg-

nancy. However, this secondary analysis was not 

able to identify a significant correlation between 

these factors. Future studies should focus on struc-

tured exercise, rather than cumulative PA. The term 

PA refers to movement due to the contraction of 

skeletal muscles, which requires expenditure of en-

ergy above what is required at rest (Fletcher et al., 

2018). The term exercise differs, as it refers to a 

planned sequence of activities with the primary goal 

of improving cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness 

(Fletcher et al., 2018). Future studies should empha-

size this distinction and look for a correlation be-

tween time spent performing structured exercise 

and LBP/PGP during pregnancy. It may be found 

that women who exercise with the aim of improving 

muscle strength and endurance may experience 

more pain relief, and if so, women may be encour-

aged to perform more structured exercise regard-

less of their general physical activity status. Addi-

tionally, future studies should look to find signifi-

cance behind the trends identified in this paper, 

such as the positive trend between PA and LBP, and 

the negative trend between PA and PGP. This paper 

determined that variations in pain throughout the 

day may have caused a discrepancy between objec-

tive pain and subjective pain reports, so future stud-

ies should control for the time of day for more accu-

rate results. Additional research regarding this topic 

has the potential to provide women with supported 

ways to reduce their experience of chronic pain dur-

ing pregnancy and improve their quality of life dur-

ing this time∎ 

 

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
I would like to thank Dr. Traci McCarthy and 

Dr. Andrea Spaeth for their support and guidance 

throughout this project. 

  



ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

7  REFERENCES 
[1] Albert, H., Godskesen, M., & Westergaard, J. (2000). 

Evaluation of clinical tests used in classification 
procedures in pregnancy-related pelvic joint pain. 
European spine journal, 9(2), 161-166. 
DOI.ORG/10.1007/S005860050228  

[2] Ando, F., & Ohashi, K. (2009). Using the posterior 
pelvic pain provocation test in pregnant Japanese 
women. Nursing & health sciences, 11(1), 3-9. 
DOI.ORG/10.1111/J.1442-2018.2008.00406.X  

[3] Berthelot, J.-M., Darrieutort-Laffite, C., Arnolfo, P., 
Glémarec, J., Le Goff, B., & Maugars, Y. (2021). 
Inadequacies of the Lasègue test, and how the 
Slump and Bowstring tests are useful for the 
diagnosis of sciatica. Joint, bone, spine : revue du 
rhumatisme, 88(1), 105030-105030. 
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JBSPIN.2020.06.004  

[4] Chiarotto, A., Maxwell, L. J., Ostelo, R. W., Boers, M., 
Tugwell, P., & Terwee, C. B. (2019). Measurement 
Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating 
Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain 
Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain: A 
Systematic Review. The journal of pain, 20(3), 245-
263.  
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JPAIN.2018.07.009  

[5] Cook, C. P. T. P. M. B. A., Massa, L. M. P. T., Harm-
Ernandes, I. P. T., Segneri, R. S. P. T., Adcock, J. S. P. 
T., Kennedy, C. D. P. T., & Figuers, C. P. T. E. (2007). 
Interrater Reliability and Diagnostic Accuracy of 
Pelvic Girdle Pain Classification. Journal of 
manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 30(4), 
252-258.  
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JMPT.2007.03.008  

[6] Dunn, G., Egger, M. J., Shaw, J. M., Yang, J., 
Bardsley, T., Powers, E., & Nygaard, I. E. (2019). 
Trajectories of lower back, upper back, and pelvic 
girdle pain during pregnancy and early postpartum 
in primiparous women. Women's Health, 15, 
1745506519842757. 
DOI.ORG/10.1177/1745506519842757  

[7] Eggen, M. H., Stuge, B., Mowinckel, P., Jensen, K. S., 
& Hagen, K. B. (2012). Can Supervised Group 
Exercises Including Ergonomic Advice Reduce the 
Prevalence and Severity of Low Back Pain and Pelvic 
Girdle Pain in Pregnancy? A Randomized Controlled 
Trial. Physical therapy, 92(6), 781-790. 
DOI.ORG/10.2522/PTJ.20110119  

[8] Engeset, J., Stuge, B., & Fegran, L. (2014). Pelvic 
girdle pain affects the whole life - A qualitative 
interview study in Norway on women's experiences 
with pelvic girdle pain after delivery. BMC research 
notes, 7(1), 686-686.  
DOI.ORG/10.1186/1756-0500-7-686  

[9] Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000). The 
Oswestry Disability index. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 
1976), 25(22), 2940-2952. 
DOI.ORG/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 
 

 
[10] Fletcher, G. F., Landolfo, C., Niebauer, J., Ozemek, 

C., Arena, R., & Lavie, C. J. (2018). Promoting 
Physical Activity and Exercise: JACC Health 
Promotion Series. Journal of the American College 
of Cardiology, 72(14), 1622-1639. 
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JACC.2018.08.2141  

[11] Grotle, M., Garratt, A. M., Krogstad Jenssen, H., & 
Stuge, B. (2012). Reliability and Construct Validity of 
Self-Report Questionnaires for Patients With Pelvic 
Girdle Pain. Physical therapy, 92(1), 111-123. 
DOI.ORG/10.2522/PTJ.20110076  

[12] Gutke, A., Betten, C., Degerskär, K., Pousette, S., & 
Fagevik Olsén, M. (2015). Treatments for pregnancy-
related lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review of 
physiotherapy modalities. Acta obstetricia et 
gynecologica Scandinavica, 94(11), 1156-1167. 
DOI.ORG/10.1111/AOGS.12681  

[13] Ha, V. V. A., Zhao, Y., Pham, M. N., Binns, C. W., 
Nguyen, C. L., Nguyen, P. T. H., Chu, T. K., & Lee, A. 
H. (2019). Physical Activity During Pregnancy and 
Postpartum Low Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort 
Study in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific journal of public 
health, 31(8), 701-709. 
DOI.ORG/10.1177/1010539519890148  

[14] Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. 
(2011). Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale 
for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain 
(NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short‐
Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‐MPQ), Chronic 
Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form‐36 Bodily Pain 
Scale (SF‐36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and 
Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis care & 
research (2010), 63(S11), S240-S252. 
DOI.ORG/10.1002/ACR.20543  

[15] Heneweer, H., Vanhees, L., & Picavet, H. S. J. (2009). 
Physical activity and low back pain: A U-shaped 
relation? Pain (Amsterdam), 143(1), 21-25. 
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.PAIN.2008.12.033  

[16] Hodges, P. W., & Smeets, R. J. (2015). Interaction 
Between Pain, Movement, and Physical Activity: 
Short-term Benefits, Long-term Consequences, and 
Targets for Treatment. The Clinical journal of pain, 
31(2), 97-107. 
DOI.ORG/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000098  

[17] Jukic, A. M. Z., Evenson, K. R., Daniels, J. L., Herring, 
A. H., Wilcox, A. J., & Hartmann, K. E. (2012). A 
Prospective Study of the Association Between 
Vigorous Physical Activity During Pregnancy and 
Length of Gestation and Birthweight. Maternal and 
child health journal, 16(5), 1031-1044. 
DOI.ORG/10.1007/S10995-011-0831-8  

[18] Kawabe, R., Yamashiro, C., Morino, S., Ishihara, M., 
Chen, C. Y., Koshi, M., Kato, N., Hatanaka, H., 
Umezaki, F., Yamashita, M., Aoyama, T., & Nagai-
Tanima, M. (2022). Relationship between Physical 
Activity and Lumbopelvic Pain during Pregnancy: A 
Cross-Sectional Study. Clinical and experimental 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2008.00406.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2020.06.004
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745506519842757
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110119
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2141
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110076
https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12681
https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539519890148
https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.12.033
https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000098
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0831-8


ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

obstetrics & gynecology, 49(9), 209. 
DOI.ORG/10.31083/J.CEOG4909209 

[19] Krismer, M., van Tulder, M., Low Back Pain Group of 
the, B., & Joint Health Strategies for Europe, P. 
(2007). Strategies for prevention and management 
of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-
specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 21(1), 77-
91. 
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.BERH.2006.08.004  

[20] Melzer, K., Schutz, Y., Boulvain, M., & Kayser, B. 
(2010). Physical Activity and Pregnancy: 
Cardiovascular Adaptations, Recommendations and 
Pregnancy Outcomes. Sports medicine (Auckland), 
40(6), 493-507. 
DOI.ORG/10.2165/11532290-000000000-00000  

[21] Ozdemir, S., Bebis, H., Ortabag, T., & Acikel, C. 
(2015). Evaluation of the efficacy of an exercise 
program for pregnant women with low back and 
pelvic pain: a prospective randomized controlled 
trial. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(8), 1926-1939. 
DOI.ORG/10.1111/JAN.12659  

[22] Papazian, T., El Osta, N., Hout, H., Chammas, D. E., 
El Helou, N., Younes, H., Abi Tayeh, G., & Rabbaa 
Khabbaz, L. (2020). Pregnancy physical activity 
questionnaire (PPAQ): Translation and cross cultural 
adaption of an Arabic version. PloS one, 15(3), 
e0230420-e0230420. 
DOI.ORG/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0230420  

[23] Physical Activity and Exercise During Pregnancy and 
the Postpartum Period: ACOG Committee Opinion, 
Number 804. (2020). Obstetrics and gynecology 
(New York. 1953), 135(4), e178-e188. 
DOI.ORG/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003772  

[24] Scaia, V., Baxter, D., & Cook, C. (2012). The pain 
provocation-based straight leg raise test for 
diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation, lumbar 
radiculopathy, and/or sciatica: a systematic review of 
clinical utility. Journal of back and musculoskeletal 
rehabilitation, 25(4), 215-223. 
DOI.ORG/10.3233/BMR-2012-0339  

[25] Stuge, B., Garratt, A., Krogstad Jenssen, H., & Grotle, 
M. (2011). The Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire: A 
Condition-Specific Instrument for Assessing Activity 
Limitations and Symptoms in People With Pelvic 
Girdle Pain. Physical therapy, 91(7), 1096-1108. 
DOI.ORG/10.2522/PTJ.20100357  

[26] Surgeons, A. A. o. O. Oswestry Low Back Disability 
Questionnaire.  

[27] van den Berg, R., Jongbloed, E. M., de Schepper, E. I. 
T., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A., Koes, B. W., & 
Luijsterburg, P. A. J. (2018). The association between 
pro-inflammatory biomarkers and nonspecific low 
back pain: a systematic review. The Spine Journal, 
18(11), 2140-2151. 
DOI.ORG/HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.SPINEE.2018.06.349  

[28] Walters, K., Hartman, C. L., & Evans, K. (2021). 
Exploring the Relationship Between Pregnancy 
Status and Physical Activity Involvement on Physical 

Activity. Recreation, parks, and tourism in public 
health, 5, 75-92. 
DOI.ORG/10.2979/RPTPH.5.1.05 

[29] Weis, C. A., Barrett, J., Tavares, P., Draper, C., Ngo, 
K., Leung, J., Huynh, T., & Landsman, V. (2018). 
Prevalence of Low Back Pain, Pelvic Girdle Pain, and 
Combination Pain in a Pregnant Ontario Population. 
Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, 
40(8), 1038-1043. 
DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JOGC.2017.10.032 

  

https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4909209
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.004
https://doi.org/10.2165/11532290-000000000-00000
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12659
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230420
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003772
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-2012-0339
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100357
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.06.349
https://doi.org/10.2979/rptph.5.1.05
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.10.032


ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE V 

 

 

 

Sarah Velez graduated from the Rutgers University - New Brunswick Honors 

College, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences in January 2023. 

She majored in Exercise Science within the Department of Kinesiology and 

Health. Sarah participated in undergraduate research in the Rutgers Sleep Lab 

over the course of three semesters, primarily assisting Dr. Traci McCarthy with 

her work focusing on physical activity during pregnancy.   

 

Outside of Rutgers, Sarah works as a physical therapy aide. Beginning in 

Spring 2023, Sarah will attend a Doctor of Physical Therapy Program to pursue 

a career as a physical therapist. 

 

Sarah can be contacted at: sarah.velez@rutgers.edu. 

 

mailto:sarah.velez@rutgers.edu

