Search

Barriers, facilitators, and motivators to exercise for cancer survivors living in urban settings are well described in the literature. However, there is a lack of comparable information for cancer survivors living in rural communities. We describe the exercise behaviours, barriers, facilitators, and motivators to exercise participation of cancer survivors living in a rural Canadian community. Adult cancer survivors with a primary address in a rural region of Ontario, Canada, who had visited a community hospital in the previous five years were mailed a cross-sectional survey assessing current exercise volume (minutes of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic and resistance exercise), as well as exercise preferences, barriers, and facilitators. Seventy-two survivors (mean age 65 years) completed the survey (16% response rate). A majority of respondents were diagnosed with breast cancer (49%) in the last 5 years (61%). Aerobic- and resistance-training guidelines for cancer survivors were met by 38% and 10% of respondents, respectively. Physical side effects were the most common barrier to exercise during treatment (65%) and post-treatment (35%). Being unaware of available exercise programs, time for exercise, distance to exercise services, and cost were commonly reported barriers during and post-treatment (reported by 10-22%). Respondents reported needing information from a qualified exercise professional (46%), access to a gym (33%) and exercise equipment (26%), and social support (25%) to facilitate exercise participation. Consistent with urban-based cancer survivors, most rural survivors surveyed in this study were not meeting the physical-activity guidelines and reported numerous exercise barriers. These findings can serve as a resource for this and similar rural communities when developing community-based exercise-support services for cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compared the performance of three amplification devices hypothesized to improve speech communication in individuals with hypophonia (HP), as well as to identify individuals' device preferences. Method: Twenty-two individuals with HP and their primary communication partners participated in a cross-over design study comparing three different speech amplification devices: a wired portable amplifier (Device A), a wireless stationary amplifier (Device B), and a one-way personal communication system (Device C). Participants attended one laboratory visit followed by 1-week trial periods with each device. At the first visit, HP participants completed speech tasks with and without the devices, in quiet and in noise. Following the in-laboratory test period, participants trialed each device at home for approximately 1 week per device. Following completion of the study, participants indicated whether or not they would like to continue using a device. Results: Overall, in the presence of noise, all three devices demonstrated significant improvements in speech-to-noise levels and speech intelligibility compared to no device. A clear device hierarchy emerged such that the personal communication device (Device C) was associated with significantly better speech outcomes compared to the other two devices. The majority of participants elected to continue using a device at the completion of the study. Device preferences, however, did not clearly reflect the objective device hierarchy that was found for the objective speech measures. Each of the three devices was selected as a preferred device by at least three participants at the completion of the study. Conclusion: Results from this study demonstrated clear differences in device performance in three distinct forms of amplification devices for individuals with HP. Findings suggest that amplification device use may be beneficial for this clinical population and underscore the potential to improve device availability and device selection criteria in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of selected speech amplification devices in individuals with hypophonia and idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD). Method: This study compared the effectiveness of seven devices (ADDvox, BoomVox, ChatterVox, Oticon Amigo, SoniVox, Spokeman, and Voicette) to unamplified speech for 11 participants with PD during conversation in 65-dB SPL multitalker noise, using experience ratings collected from participant questionnaires and speech performance measures (i.e., speech-to-noise ratio [SNR], speech intensity, and intelligibility) obtained from audio recordings. Results: Compared with unamplified speech, device use increased SNR by 1.07–4.73 dB SPL and speech intensity by 1.1–5.1 dB SPL, and it significantly increased transcribed intelligibility from 13.8% to 58.9%. In addition, the type of device used significantly affected speech performance measures (e.g., BoomVox was significantly higher than most of the other devices for SNR, speech intensity, and intelligibility). However, experience ratings did not always correspond to performance measures. Conclusions: This study found preliminary evidence of improved speech performance with device use for individuals with PD. A tentative hierarchy is suggested for device recommendations. Future research is needed to determine which measures will predict long-term device acceptance in PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We provide new evidence on the effects of workplace smoking restrictions by studying more than 100 local smoking ordinances in Ontario, Canada from 1997-2004. We advance the literature by examining local (as opposed to state or provincial) laws in a quasi-experimental framework and by explicitly testing for effects on worksite compliance and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). We show that the local laws significantly increased workplace smoking restrictions for blue collar workers, and among this group the laws (and, by implication, workplace smoking bans) reduced ETS exposure by 28-33 percent. We find smaller and insignificant estimates for other workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]