Search

Loneliness research has tended to focus on mainstream and older populations despite evidence that non‐mainstream groups, like those experiencing homelessness, may experience loneliness differently. Limited existing research indicates that (a) people who have been homeless experience loneliness as multidimensional (as a pluralistic, non‐unidimensional emotion, experienced specific to lacked relationships) and (b) mainstream loneliness scales may be inappropriate for this group. The current study piloted and appraised the feasibility the short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA‐S) among 129 Australian adults with a lived experience of homelessness. Exploratory Factor Analysis and an observational questionnaire appraisal were used to assess factorial and content validity and showed the measure did not fit this sample as well as in mainstream samples. Removal of items that participants found difficult to comprehend/answer improved the factorial fit of the scale. In conclusion, the SELSA‐S may be inappropriate for measuring loneliness among people who have experienced homelessness. Further research needs to explore the potentially different structure of loneliness among marginalised groups so that a better understanding of loneliness can be reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In search of Kipling's six honest serving men in upper limb rehabilitation after stroke, we sought to investigate clinicians' perspective of when and where to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, and who and why (or not) to provide therapy. Materials & methods: Within-participant case cross-over experiments were nested within an anonymous web-based questionnaire (21 questions, three cases). Graph theory-based voting to produce ranked ordered lists and mixed-effect logistic regression were performed. In total, 225 Australian stroke clinicians responded: 53% occupational therapists, 61% working in acute/inpatient stroke setting. Most respondents indicated they did not have a protocol/expectation regarding when (62%), how much (84%) or what (60%) therapy to provide in their setting. Respondents ranked 24-h to 7-days post-stroke as the optimal time to commence therapy, and 30- to 60-min per day as the optimal dose to provide. Within-participant experiments demonstrated that greater motor recovery as time progressed increased the odds of offering therapy, while lack of motor recovery, shoulder pain, neurological decline and sole therapist reduced the odds. We need to develop an evidence base concerning Kipling's six honest serving men and equip clinicians with clinical decision-making skills aligned with this focus. Most clinicians did not have access to a protocol / clinical pathway which defines when, how much and what upper limb therapy to provide after stroke, which may be improved by providing individual clinicians with organisational support to make therapy decisions. To improve the personalisation of upper limb rehabilitation in clinical practice, we need to understand when and where after stroke to begin therapy, how much and what therapy to provide, as well as who and why (clinical decision-making) to provide therapy. Clinicians perceive clinical trials as successful if the therapy can demonstrate recovery that is greater than a minimal clinical important difference (MCID). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the nutrition knowledge of elite Australian athletes, and to obtain feedback from sports dietitians on the Platform to Evaluate Athlete Knowledge of Sports Nutrition Questionnaires' (PEAKS‐NQ) suitability. Methods: Sports dietitians from the National Institute Network across Australia recruited athletes to complete the online, 50‐item PEAKS‐NQ which contained two sections (General Nutrition and Sports Nutrition). Sports dietitians provided feedback on the PEAKS‐NQ using a 14‐item questionnaire (with two open‐ended items). The main outcome measures were nutrition knowledge score and tool suitability (usefulness, acceptability and feasibility) scores. For knowledge scores, independent t‐tests, ANOVA and Chi‐square tests were used to evaluate differences between groups. Suitability was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: Twelve sports dietitians from the National Institute Network in Australia recruited a convenience sample of 240 athletes (21.3 ± 4.3 years, 63.5% female, 63.3% competed internationally). Athletes scored 70.7 ± 10.5%, with better general vs sports nutrition knowledge. Females had higher overall scores (P <.001) with no differences for age or sport played. University‐educated athletes scored higher than non‐tertiary educated athletes (P =.004). Knowledge gaps were identified in fats (role and food sources), recovery nutrition and managing body composition. Sports dietitians rated suitability of PEAKS‐NQ positively with complete agreement on 8 of 12 items. Conclusions: Athletes have greater understanding of general nutrition compared to sports nutrition concepts and may benefit from education on applying nutrition in sports‐specific contexts. Sports dietitians' responses showed PEAKS‐NQ was a highly acceptable, feasible and useful measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]