Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual. 相似文献
BackgroundUsing a mobile phone while performing a postural and locomotor tasks is a common, daily situation. Conversing or sending messages (SMS) while walking account for a significant share of accidental injuries. Therefore, understanding the consequences of using a mobile phone on balance and walking is important, all the more so when these postural and locomotor tasks are aggravated by a disease.Research questionOur objective was to conduct a scoping review on the influence of a dual-task situation – generated by the use of mobile phone – on users' postural and/or locomotor tasks.MethodsThe literature search was conducted in English on PubMed/Medline and CINHAL databases, using keywords associated with postural and locomotor tasks and with the use of mobile phone. Study location, population, number of subjects, experimental design, types of phone use, evaluated postural-locomotor tasks and expected effects were then analyzed.Results and significance46 studies were included in this work, 24 of which came from North America. All studies compared postural and locomotor tasks with and without the use of a smartphone. Ten studies also compared at least 2 groups with different characteristics. Only 4 studies included pathological subjects. Various modalities were tested, and most studies focused on walking. Results show that the use of smartphones slows down movement and induces a systematic imbalance, except when listening to music. The dual task of "using the smartphone during a postural or locomotor tasks" induces systematic disturbances of balance and movement, which must be taken into account in the rehabilitation approach. Future studies will have to extend the knowledge regarding pathological situations. 相似文献
BackgroundThere are conflicting findings regarding the impact of residential mobility on immunisation status. Our aim was to determine whether there was any association between residential mobility and take up of immunisations and whether they were delayed in administration.MethodsWe carried out a cohort analysis of children born in Wales, UK. Uptake and time of immunisation were collected electronically. We defined frequent movers as those who had moved: 2 or more times in the period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (4 months) for 5 in 1 vaccinations; and 3 or more times in the period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (12 months) for MMR, pneumococcal and meningitis C vaccinations. We defined immunisations due at 2–4 months delayed if they had not been given by age 1; and those due at 12–13 months as delayed if they had not been given by age 2.ResultsUptake rates of routine immunisations and whether they were given within the specified timeframe were high for both groups. There was no increased risk (odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) between frequent movers compared to non-movers for the uptake of: primary MMR 1.08 (0.88–1.32); booster Meningitis C 1.65 (0.93–2.92); booster pneumococcal 1.60 (0.59–4.31); primary 5 in 1 1.28 (0.92–1.78); and timeliness: primary MMR 0.92 (0.79–1.07); booster Meningitis C 1.26 (0.77–2.07); booster pneumococcal 1.69 (0.23–12.14); and primary 5 in 1 1.04 (0.88–1.23).DiscussionFindings suggest that children who move home frequently are not adversely affected in terms of the uptake of immunisations and whether they were given within a specified timeframe. Both were high and may reflect proactive behaviour in the primary healthcare setting to meet Government coverage rates for immunisation. 相似文献
Central illustration: cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thrombosis rates after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years.相似文献
To assay peripheral inter-ictal cytokine serum levels and possible relations with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) responsiveness in migraineurs.
Methods
This double-blinded, sham-controlled study enrolled 48 subjects and measured headache severity, frequency [headache days/month, number of total and mild/moderate/severe classified attacks/month], functional state [sleep, mood, body weight, migraine-associated disability] and serum levels of inflammatory markers [inter-ictal] using enzyme-linked immunoassays at baseline and after 2 months of adjunctive nVNS compared to sham stimulation and suitably matched controls.
Results
No significant differences were observed at baseline and after 2 months for headache severity, total attacks/month, headache days/month and functional outcome [sleep, mood, disability] between verum and sham nVNS. However, the number of severe attacks/month significantly decreased in the verum nVNS group and circulating pro-inflammatory IL-1β was elevated significantly in the sham group compared to nVNS. Levels of anti-inflammatory IL-10 were significantly higher at baseline in both groups compared to healthy controls, but not at 2 months follow-up [p?<?0.05]. Concentrations of high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB-1), IL-6, tumor-necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), leptin, adiponectin, ghrelin remained unchanged [p?>?0.05]. No severe device-/stimulation-related adverse events occurred.
Conclusion
2 months of adjunctive cervical nVNS significantly declined the number of severe attacks/month. Pro-inflammatory IL-1β plasma levels [inter-ictal] were higher in sham-treated migraine patients compared to verum nVNS. However, pro- [IL-6, HMGB-1, TNF-α, leptin] and anti-inflammatory [IL-10, adiponectin, ghrelin] mediators did not differ statistically. Profiling of neuroinflammatory circuits in migraine to predict nVNS responsiveness remains an experimental approach, which may be biased by pre-analytic variables warranting large-scale biobank-based systematic investigations [omics]. 相似文献