18 resultados para Complaint
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Disrupted sleep is a common complaint of individuals with alcohol use disorder and in abstinent alcoholics. Furthermore, among recovering alcoholics, poor sleep predicts relapse to drinking. Whether disrupted sleep in these populations results from prolonged alcohol use or precedes the onset of drinking is not known. The aim of this study was to examine the sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) in alcohol-naïve, parental history positive (PH+), and negative (PH-) boys and girls. METHODS All-night sleep EEG recordings in 2 longitudinal cohorts (child and teen) followed at 1.5 to 3 year intervals were analyzed. The child and teen participants were 9/10 and 15/16 years old at the initial assessment, respectively. Parental history status was classified by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria applied to structured interviews (DIS-IV) resulting in 14 PH- and 10 PH+ children and 14 PH- and 10 PH+ teens. Sleep data were visually scored in 30-second epochs using standard criteria. Power spectra were calculated for EEG derivations C3/A2, C4/A1, O2/A1, O1/A2 for nonrapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. RESULTS We found no difference between PH+ and PH- individuals in either cohort for any visually scored sleep stage variable. Spectral power declined in both cohorts across assessments for NREM and REM sleep in all derivations and across frequencies independent of parental history status. With regard to parental history, NREM sleep EEG power was lower for the delta band in PH+ teens at both assessments for the central derivations. Furthermore, power in the sigma band for the right occipital derivation in both NREM and REM sleep was lower in PH+ children only at the initial assessment. CONCLUSIONS We found no gross signs of sleep disruption as a function of parental history. Modest differences in spectral EEG power between PH+ and PH- children and teens indicate that a marker of parental alcohol history may be detectable in teens at risk for problem drinking.
Resumo:
Recognizing the potentially ruinous effect of negative reviews on the reputation of the hosts as well as a subjective nature of the travel experience judgements, peer-to-peer accommodation sharing plat-forms, like Airbnb, have readily embraced the “response” option, empowering hosts with the voice to challenge, deny or at least apologize for the subject of critique. However, the effects of different re-sponse strategies on trusting beliefs towards the host remain unclear. To fill this gap, this study focus-es on understanding the impact of different response strategies and review negativity on trusting be-liefs towards the host in peer-to-peer accommodation sharing setting utilizing experimental methods. Examination of two different contexts, varying in the controllability of the subject of complaint, re-veals that when the subject of complaint is controllable by a host, such strategies as confession / apol-ogy and denial can improve trusting beliefs towards the host. However, when the subject of criticism is beyond the control of the host, denial of the issue does not yield guest’s confidence in the host, where-as confession and excuse have positive influence on trusting beliefs.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Symptoms associated with pes planovalgus or flatfeet occur frequently, even though some people with a flatfoot deformity remain asymptomatic. Pes planovalgus is proposed to be associated with foot/ankle pain and poor function. Concurrently, the multifactorial weakness of the tibialis posterior muscle and its tendon can lead to a flattening of the longitudinal arch of the foot. Those affected can experience functional impairment and pain. Less severe cases at an early stage are eligible for non-surgical treatment and foot orthoses are considered to be the first line approach. Furthermore, strengthening of arch and ankle stabilising muscles are thought to contribute to active compensation of the deformity leading to stress relief of soft tissue structures. There is only limited evidence concerning the numerous therapy approaches, and so far, no data are available showing functional benefits that accompany these interventions. METHODS After clinical diagnosis and clarification of inclusion criteria (e.g., age 40-70, current complaint of foot and ankle pain more than three months, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction stage I & II, longitudinal arch flattening verified by radiography), sixty participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction associated complaints will be included in the study and will be randomly assigned to one of three different intervention groups: (i) foot orthoses only (FOO), (ii) foot orthoses and eccentric exercise (FOE), or (iii) sham foot orthoses only (FOS). Participants in the FOO and FOE groups will be allocated individualised foot orthoses, the latter combined with eccentric exercise for ankle stabilisation and strengthening of the tibialis posterior muscle. Participants in the FOS group will be allocated sham foot orthoses only. During the intervention period of 12 weeks, all participants will be encouraged to follow an educational program for dosed foot load management (e.g., to stop activity if they experience increasing pain). Functional impairment will be evaluated pre- and post-intervention by the Foot Function Index. Further outcome measures include the Pain Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, SF-12, kinematic data from 3D-movement analysis and neuromuscular activity during level and downstairs walking. Measuring outcomes pre- and post-intervention will allow the calculation of intervention effects by 3×3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. DISCUSSION The purpose of this randomised trial is to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of three different non-surgical treatment regimens in participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and accompanying pes planovalgus. Furthermore, the analysis of changes in gait mechanics and neuromuscular control will contribute to an enhanced understanding of functional changes and eventually optimise conservative management strategies for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01839669.