Document Type : Original Articles


1 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran & Ph.D. Red Crescent So‌ciety of Yazd Province, Yazd, Iran.

3 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.

5 Department of orthotics and prosthetics, University of social welfare and rehabilitation sciences, Tehran, Iran.


Background: Quality of life (QOL) is a multidimensional concept encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and social functions. Lumbar pain (LP) experienced during pregnancy can have a negative impact on QOL, but the use of pregnancy belts has been known to improve it. Presently, these belts' most common design pattern involves an adjustable one-piece panel at the pelvic girdle (PG) but does not support the lumbar region. However, the new pregnancy belt evaluated in this study is designed to support the lumbar and pelvic girdles simultaneously. The primary objective of this study is to assess the QOL of pregnant females experiencing lumbar pain while using the new pregnancy belt compared to the current belt (CB).
Methods:  In this randomized controlled trial study, a total of 48 pregnant females experiencing pregnancy-related lumbar pain (LP) participated. They were divided into three groups: the CB, new belt, and control groups. At the beginning of the study and after three weeks, all groups completed a demographic questionnaire and a Quality of Life (QOL) questionnaire using the SF36 tool.
Results: After three weeks, all eight health concepts of the SF36 questionnaire showed improvement in both the CB and new belt user groups. However, in the control group, there was a decrease in these health concepts during the same period. A significant difference was observed in the physical and mental health scales when comparing the new belt group to the CB group. However, the two variables had no significant difference, with p-values of 1.00 and 0.15, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the study's findings, it can be inferred that the new pregnancy belt has a more significant impact on enhancing the Quality of Life (QOL) of pregnant females compared to the CB (current belt).


  1. Lima AC do N, Oliveira FB de, Avolio GP, Silva GD da, Silva PS da, Vale RG de S. Prevalence of low back pain and interference with quality of life of pregnant women. Rev Dor. 2017;18:119–23.
  2. Da\uglar G, Bilgiç D, Özkan SA. Factors affecting the quality of life among pregnant women during third trimester of pregnancy. Cukurova Med J. 2019;44(3):1.
  3. Lagadec N, Steinecker M, Kapassi A, Magnier AM, Chastang J, Robert S, et al. Factors influencing the quality of life of pregnant women: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–14.
  4. Olsson C, Lena N-W. Health-related quality of life and physical ability among pregnant women with and without back pain in late pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(4):351–7.
  5. Ibanez G, Blondel B, Prunet C, Kaminski M, Saurel-Cubizolles M-J. Prevalence and characteristics of women reporting poor mental health during pregnancy: findings from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2015;63(2):85–95.
  6. Biviá Roig G, Lisón Párraga JF, Sánchez Zuriaga D. Changes in trunk posture and muscle responses in standing during pregnancy and postpartum/Gemma Biviá-Roig, Juan Francisco Lisón and Daniel Sánchez-Zuriaga. 2019;
  7. Bivia-Roig G, Lisón JF, Sanchez-Zuriaga D. Changes in trunk posture and muscle responses in standing during pregnancy and postpartum. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194853.
  8. Biviá-Roig G, Lisón JF, Sánchez-Zuriaga D. Effects of pregnancy on lumbar motion patterns and muscle responses. Spine J. 2019;19(2):364–71.
  9. Bastiaanssen JM, de Bie RA, Bastiaenen CHG, Essed GGM, van den Brandt PA. A historical perspective on pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;120(1):3–14.
  10. Cheng PL, Pantel M, Smith JT, Dumas GA, Leger AB, Plamondon A, et al. Back pain of working pregnant women: identification of associated occupational factors. Appl Ergon. 2009;40(3):419–23.
  11. Gutke A, Boissonnault J, Brook G, Stuge B. The severity and impact of pelvic girdle pain and low-back pain in pregnancy: a multinational study. J women’s Heal. 2018;27(4):510–7.
  12. Khan MJ, Israr A, Basharat I, Shoukat A, Mushtaq N, Farooq H. Prevalence of pregnancy related low back pain in third trimester and its impact on quality of life and physical limitation. J Islam Int Med Coll. 2017;12(1):39–43.
  13. Bertuit J, Leyh C, Feipel V. Center of plantar pressure during gait in pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain and the effect of pelvic belts. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20(4):69–76.
  14. Bertuit J, Van Lint CE, Rooze M, Feipel V. Pregnancy and pelvic girdle pain: Analysis of pelvic belt on pain. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(1–2):e129–37.
  15. Sonmezer E, Özköslü MA, Yosmao\uglu HB. The effects of clinical pilates exercises on functional disability, pain, quality of life and lumbopelvic stabilization in pregnant women with low back pain: A randomized controlled study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(1):69–76.
  16. Liddle SD, Pennick V. Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2015;30 (9):CD001139.
  17. Bishop A, Holden MA, Ogollah RO, Foster NE, EASE Back Study Team. Current management of pregnancy-related low back pain: a national cross-sectional survey of U.K. physiotherapists. Physiotherapy. 2016;102(1):78–85.
  18. Glinkowski WM, Tomasik P, Walesiak K, Głuszak M, Krawczak K, Michoński J, et al. Posture and low back pain during pregnancy - 3D study. Ginekol Pol. 2016;87(8):575–80.
  19. Ibanez G, Khaled A, Renard JF, Rohani S, Nizard J, Baiz N, et al. Back pain during pregnancy and quality of life of pregnant women. Prim Heal Care Open Access. 2017;7(1):1–6.
  20. Quintero Rodriguez C, Troynikov O. The Effect of Maternity Support Garments on Alleviation of Pains and Discomforts during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. J Pregnancy. 2019; 2163790.
  21. Szkwara JM, Milne N, Hing W, Pope R. Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Acceptability of Dynamic Elastomeric Fabric Orthoses (DEFO) for Managing Pain, Functional Capacity, and Quality of Life during Prenatal and Postnatal Care: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2408.
  22. Cole AJ, Herring SA. The low back pain handbook: A guide for the practicing clinician. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2003.
  23. Kang X, Ying B-A, Zhang X, Qi J, Wu L. Force Analysis of the Support Belt and Pregnant Woman for Relieving the Pregnancy-related Waist Pain. J Fiber Bioeng Informatics. 2018;11(4):217–26. Available from:
  24. Cameron L, Marsden J, Watkins K, Freeman J. Management of antenatal pelvic-girdle pain study (MAPS): A single centred blinded randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of two pelvic orthoses. Int J women’s Heal Care. 2018;3(2):1–9.
  25. Kordi R, Abolhasani M, Rostami M, Hantoushzadeh S, Mansournia MA, Vasheghani-Farahani F. Comparison between the effect of lumbopelvic belt and home based pelvic stabilizing exercise on pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain; a randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(2):133–9.
  26. Hammer N, Möbius R, Schleifenbaum S, Hammer K-H, Klima S, Lange JS, et al. Pelvic belt effects on health outcomes and functional parameters of patients with sacroiliac joint pain. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136375.
  27. Heydari Z, Aminian G, Biglarian A, Shokrpour M, Mardani MA. Comparison of the Modified Lumbar Pelvic Belt with the Current Belt on Low Back and Pelvic Pain in Pregnant women. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022;
  28. Ware Jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130–9.
  29. Ware Jr JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–12.