The impact of wireless keypads in an interprofessional education context with health science students

The aim of this study was to identify if wireless keypads could facilitate interprofessional interaction among undergraduate paramedic, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, health science, social work and midwifery students. Secondary research aims included the examination of students' perceptions of interprofessional education and how students perceived using wireless keypads in large lecture classes and smaller tutorials. The study used a mixed methodology approach via self‐reporting questionnaires and focus groups that included (n = 210) students in week 1 and (n = 151) students in week 13 of an undergraduate unit. Overall, students were satisfied with the use of wireless keypads in their interprofessional undergraduate unit of study. While modest findings supported the use of wireless keypads in improving student interaction, other findings were statistically significant in understanding the roles of other health professions and why collaboration in health‐care environments was important for professional growth. The following themes emerged from the qualitative data: engagement, satisfaction, use of educational technology, interprofessional education and learning environment. Integration of wireless keypads has assisted undergraduate students to better appreciate and understand other health‐care disciplines within an interprofessional education setting. Students reported that they appreciated the alternative teaching and learning approach that wireless keypads offered, thus improving engagement and interactivity, and providing a broader understanding of other allied health‐care professions.     

Initial foot contact and related kinematics affect impact loading rate in running

This study assessed kinematic differences between different foot strike patterns and their relationship with peak vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR) of the ground reaction force (GRF). Fifty-two runners ran at 3.2 m · s^?1 while we recorded GRF and lower limb kinematics and determined foot strike pattern: Typical or Atypical rearfoot strike (RFS), midfoot strike (MFS) of forefoot strike (FFS). Typical RFS had longer contact times and a lower leg stiffness than Atypical RFS and MFS. Typical RFS showed a dorsiflexed ankle (7.2 ± 3.5°) and positive foot angle (20.4 ± 4.8°) at initial contact while MFS showed a plantar flexed ankle (?10.4 ± 6.3°) and more horizontal foot (1.6 ± 3.1°). Atypical RFS showed a plantar flexed ankle (?3.1 ± 4.4°) and a small foot angle (7.0 ± 5.1°) at initial contact and had the highest VILR. For the RFS (Typical and Atypical RFS), foot angle at initial contact showed the highest correlation with VILR (r = ?0.68). The observed higher VILR in Atypical RFS could be related to both ankle and foot kinematics and global running style that indicate a limited use of known kinematic impact absorbing “strategies” such as initial ankle dorsiflexion in MFS or initial ankle plantar flexion in Typical RFS.