Search

Backgound: Headache disorders are not only among the most prevalent, they are also among the most disabling disorders worldwide. This paper investigates the association between headache impact on daily life and the socioeconomic status (SES) of headache sufferers. Methods: Data stem from a random general population sample in Germany. Respondents who reported having headache for at least a year and were aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. A standardized questionnaire addressing headache and headache treatment was filled in during the face-to-face survey. The impact of headache on daily life was measured using the German version of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). Results: Higher headache impact was found in low and medium SES compared to high SES. After adjustment for sociodemographics, headache-related factors (analgesic use, headache duration, headache frequency, migraine diagnosis), depressive symptoms, physical inactivity and obesity, an increased odds ratio of having higher headache impact in low SES compared to high SES was found: OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.43, 2.23], p =.014. When the interactions "SES*obesity", "SES*depressive symptoms", and "SES*physical inactivity" were added, the results showed a significant interaction effect of "SES*obesity". Obese persons with low SES were 3.64 times more likely to have higher headache impact than non-obese persons with low SES. No significant differences between obese and non-obese persons were found in the medium and high SES groups. Conclusions: SES is an important factor that should not be neglected in headache awareness campaigns and headache treatment. Longitudinal studies are needed in the future to investigate whether lifestyle interventions, such as weight reduction, can help to reduce headache impact in people in lower SES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports the results of an exploratory online survey among German, Austrian, and Swiss hospital chaplains (n = 158, response rate 17%) to identify the ethical conflicts they encounter in their work. Respondents indicated that questions surrounding end-of-life care are predominant among the conflicts faced. Chaplains get involved with these conflicts most often through the patients themselves or through nursing staff. Most encounters occur during pastoral care visits rather than in structured forms of ethics consultation such as clinical ethics committees. The results add to the ongoing discussion of chaplains as agents in ethics consultation within healthcare systems as well as their specific role and contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This paper explores the role of providing structure for students within a new blended-learning family medicine curriculum at Saarland University. This study intends to clarify the role of different structural elements for different learning approaches (deep vs. structured vs. surface learning). Methods This study is based on a mixed-methods approach. Fifth year medical students' (n = 84) learning approaches, measured by a shortened version of the ASSIST questionnaire, were correlated with students' academic performance in state exams and the family medicine exam. Based on learning approaches and age, participants were purposefully sampled into two semi-structured group interviews with seven participants each. Results Although surface approach learning weakly correlated with lower performance in the first state exam (rho = 0.231), surface approach learning did not correlate with lower performance in the family medicine assessment. Based on qualitative results, the structural design of the curriculum seemed to have a high impact on students' satisfaction and motivation to learn. The reduction of extraneous cognitive load was identified as effective in motivating students to study. Deep-learning students highlighted the positive effects of curriculum activities that foster germane cognitive load through schema- based learning. Conclusions Especially for surface approach learners it may be important to provide structured guidance and provide a clear alignment of course content in a blended-learning curriculum, even in higher education. Deep and structured approach learners also benefit from a clear course structure that keeps extraneous cognitive load low and fosters schema acquisition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology. Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to suggest future research directions. Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832). Data Sources: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021. Eligibility Criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running. Results: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs. Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]