Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Athletes (1)
- COINS (1)
- Injury (1)
- Jumping (1)
- LBP (1)
- Neurocognition (1)
- activities of daily life (1)
- chronic low back pain (1)
- exercise (1)
- healthcare workers (1)
Institute
- Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften (3) (remove)
Failed jump landings represent a key mechanism of musculoskeletal trauma. It has been speculated that cognitive dual-task loading during the flight phase may moderate the injury risk. This study aimed to explore whether increased visual distraction can compromise landing biomechanics. Twenty-one healthy, physically active participants (15 females, 25.8 ± 0.4 years) completed a series of 30 counter-movement jumps (CMJ) onto a capacitive pressure platform. In addition to safely landing on one leg, they were required to memorize either one, two or three jersey numbers shown during the flight phase (randomly selected and equally balanced over all jumps). Outcomes included the number of recall errors as well as landing errors and three variables of landing kinetics (time to stabilization/TTS, peak ground reaction force/pGRF, length of the centre of pressure trace/COPT). Differences between the conditions were calculated using the Friedman test and the post hoc Bonferroni-Holm corrected Wilcoxon test. Regardless of the condition, landing errors remained unchanged (p = .46). In contrast, increased visual distraction resulted in a higher number of recall errors (chi² = 13.3, p = .001). Higher cognitive loading, furthermore, appeared to negatively impact mediolateral COPT (p < .05). Time to stabilization (p = .84) and pGRF (p = .78) were unaffected. A simple visual distraction in a controlled experimental setting is sufficient to adversely affect landing stability and task-related short-term memory during CMJ. The ability to precisely perceive the environment during movement under time constraints may, hence, represent a new injury risk factor and should be investigated in a prospective trial.
Background: This study investigated whether work ability is associated with the duration of unemployment, heart rate variability (HRV), and the level of physical activity. Methods: Thirty-four unemployed persons (mean 55.7 ± standard deviation 33.3 years, 22 female, 12 male, unemployed: range 1–22.5 years) participated in the cross-sectional study. The Work Ability Index (WAI) and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) were applied. Short-term (five minutes) resting HRV (Low Frequency (LF), High Frequency (HF), Total Power (TP)) was collected. Results: Work ability was positively associated with the HRV: LF (r = 0.383; p = 0.025), HF (r = 0.412; p = 0.015) and TP (r = 0.361; p = 0.036). The WAI showed a positive linear correlation with the amount of total physical activity (r = 0.461; p = 0.006) as well as with the amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity (r = 0.413; p = 0.015). No association between the WAI and the duration of unemployment occurred. Conclusions: the relation between self-perceived work ability, health-associated parameters, the HRV and the level of physical activity points out the relevance of health-care exercise and the need of stress-reducing interventions to improve perceived work ability. Our results point out the need for the further and more holistic development of healthcare for the unemployed.
Low-to-moderate quality meta-analytic evidence shows that motor control stabilisation exercise (MCE) is an effective treatment of non-specific low back pain. A possible approach to overcome the weaknesses of traditional meta-analyses would be that of a prospective meta-analyses. The aim of the present analysis was to generate high-quality evidence to support the view that motor control stabilisation exercises (MCE) lead to a reduction in pain intensity and disability in non-specific low back pain patients when compared to a control group. In this prospective meta-analysis and sensitivity multilevel meta-regression within the MiSpEx-Network, 18 randomized controlled study arms were included. Participants with non-specific low back pain were allocated to an intervention (individualized MCE, 12 weeks) or a control group (no additive exercise intervention). From each study site/arm, outcomes at baseline, 3 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months were pooled. The outcomes were current pain (NRS or VAS, 11 points scale), characteristic pain intensity, and subjective disability. A random effects meta-analysis model for continuous outcomes to display standardized mean differences between intervention and control was performed, followed by sensitivity multilevel meta-regressions. Overall, 2391 patients were randomized; 1976 (3 weeks, short-term), 1740 (12 weeks, intermediate), and 1560 (6 months, sustainability) participants were included in the meta-analyses. In the short-term, intermediate and sustainability, moderate-to-high quality evidence indicated that MCE has a larger effect on current pain (SMD = −0.15, −0.15, −0.19), pain intensity (SMD = −0.19, −0.26, −0.26) and disability (SMD = −0.15, −0.27, −0.25) compared with no exercise intervention. Low-quality evidence suggested that those patients with comparably intermediate current pain and older patients may profit the most from MCE. Motor control stabilisation exercise is an effective treatment for non-specific low back pain. Sub-clinical intermediate pain and middle-aged patients may profit the most from this intervention.