Search

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study is to compare stigmatizing attitudes, reported and intended behavior, and knowledge of mental illness between university students and the general population. Methods: An online cross-sectional observational study was conducted. The survey included sociodemographic data and validated stigma questionnaires (the Attribution Questionnaire [AQ-27], the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale [RIBS], and the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule [MAKS]). Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multiple regression modeling were employed to analyze the data. Results: A total of 506 participants completed the survey, including 226 (44.7%) university students (61.1% women), and 280 (55.3%) individuals from the general population (69.3% women). For both groups, women and individuals who had lived with someone with mental health problems exhibited more positive attitudes (p < 0.05). University students reported greater knowledge of mental illness (p < 0.05) than the general population. After controlling for covariates, university students only scored higher than the general population in the blame factor of the AQ-27 (p < 0.05). Additionally, older participants from both groups exhibited higher levels of stigmatizing attitudes compared to those of a younger age. Conclusion: These findings suggest that university students exhibit similar levels of stigmatizing attitudes to the general population. Among both groups, female sex, older age, previous contact with individuals with mental illness, and greater knowledge of mental health are all associated with less stigma toward people with mental illness. Tailored interventions grounded in contact with mental illness have the potential to help reduce stigmatizing attitudes within both groups.

BackgroundThe curricular changes in educational activities, teaching methodologies, and assessment systems brought about by the COVID-19 closure, which restricted attendance in curricular practices, required adjustments. However, the impact of these curricular adaptations on the acquisition of competencies in the clinical context has not been sufficiently explored.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the potential impact on the expected learning outcomes in the Basic Manual Therapy course following curricular adaptations made during the COVID-19 lockdown. We specifically must be focused on acquiring competencies related to the clinical domain, including clinical practice, medical history, and reflective journaling during clinical practices. We aimed to compare these experiences with those of students who did not undergo any adaptations in the previous academic year.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study in a sample of physical therapy university students, conducted in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. We divided students into two groups based on when they enrolled: the ‘non-exposed group’ (NE), which includes those who finished the Basic Manual Therapy course in 2018–2019 and Clinical Stays I in 2019–2020, and the ‘exposed group’ (E), consisting of students who completed the Basic Manual Therapy course in 2019–2020 and later took part in Clinical Stays I during 2020–2021.ResultsA total of 282 students were included in the study. The results indicated that the curricular adaptations implemented for the Basic Manual Therapy [U(E Mdn = 7.7000, NE Mdn = 7.7000) = 9,286, z = −0.546, p = 0.585] and Clinical Stays I subjects [U(E Mdn = 8.5900, NE Mdn = 8.4700) = 9,600, z = −0.078, p = 0.938] did not have a statistically significant impact on the acquisition of competencies and learning outcomes when comparing the two groups. Most differences between groups were observed in reflective journaling marks [U(E Mdn =8.300, NE Mdn = 8.000) = 7770.5, z = −2.796, p = 0.005] and Student Progress item of this Reflective Journaling [U(E Mdn = 9.000, NE Mdn = 8.000) = 7216.5, z = −3,668, p = 0.000], favoring the E cohort. In both groups, a low and positive correlation was found between the ordinary BMT mark and the ordinary CS I mark [Rho (E = 0.206, NE = 0.170), p

This study aimed to investigate if the characteristics of different running shoes could influence intra-abdominal pressure during running. A single-centre, randomized, prospective cross-over clinical trial was performed measuring activity patterns of internal oblique (IO), lumbar erector (LE), and gluteus maximus (GM) muscles in healthy women when running with minimalist shoes (MS). Participants were randomly allocated into two-sequence (MS/TS or TS/MS) treadmill running at six, nine, and eleven km/h. The surface electromyographic activity of IO, LE, and GM muscles were recorded while running. A repeated measures ANOVA explored the interaction effects of three-muscle x three speeds x two shoes. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Fifty-one healthy nulliparous women (mean age: 26.55 ± 5.11 years; body mass index: 21.29 ± 2.07 Kg/m2) were included. Our findings revealed lower activations of the LE compared to the internal oblique IO and GM, irrespective of running speed and footwear used. Electromyographic activation significantly increased with higher running speeds (p < 0.001) for all muscles, regardless of the type of footwear. Although electromyographic records with MS consistently showed higher values than those with TS, the differences were not statistically significant for all muscles at all speeds. Our results indicate that electromyographic activation patterns vary according to the muscle group, exhibiting higher values with increased running speed. No significant differences were observed between MS and TS.

Cognitive impairment is frequent in elderly subjects. It is associated with motor impairment, a limitation in quality of life and frequently, institutionalization. The aim of this work is to test the efficacy of a therapeutic group program based on action-observation learning. Methods: a non-randomized controlled trial study was conducted. We included 40 patients with cognitive impairment from a nursing home who were categorized into mild and moderate cognitive impairment and divided separately into a control and experimental group. Experimental group performed a 4-week group work, in which each patient with mild cognitive impairment was paired with a patient with moderate cognitive impairment. Thus, patients with mild cognitive impairment observed a series of functional exercises performed by their peers and replicated them. Simultaneously, the patients with moderate cognitive impairment replicated the movement after observing it performed by a patient with mild cognitive impairment. The control group continued to receive their usual care at the center. The upper limb function, cognitive level and function in basic activities of human daily life were measured before and after the intervention and compared with the control group. Results: statistically significant differences were found in the functionality of basic activities of daily living, in the functionality of the upper limb and in the cognitive level in all patients in the experimental group regardless of the initial cognitive level. No statistically significant differences were found in the control group. Conclusions: the implementation of a group, peer-based, action-observation learning therapeutic program is effective in improving the basic activities of human daily life, cognitive level and upper limb functionality in patients with mild and moderate dementia.