The kinematic differences between off-spin and leg-spin bowling in cricket

Spin bowling is generally coached using a standard technical framework, but this practice has not been based upon a comparative biomechanical analysis of leg-spin and off-spin bowling. This study analysed the three-dimensional (3D) kinematics of 23 off-spin and 20 leg-spin bowlers using a Cortex motion analysis system to identify how aspects of the respective techniques differed. A multivariate ANOVA found that certain data tended to validate some of the stated differences in the coaching literature. Off-spin bowlers had a significantly shorter stride length (p = 0.006) and spin rate (p = 0.001), but a greater release height than leg-spinners (p = 0.007). In addition, a number of other kinematic differences were identified that were not previously documented in coaching literature. These included a larger rear knee flexion (p = 0.007), faster approach speed (p < 0.001), and flexing elbow action during the arm acceleration compared with an extension action used by most of the off-spin bowlers. Off-spin and leg-spin bowlers also deviated from the standard coaching model for the shoulder alignment, front knee angle at release, and forearm mechanics. This study suggests that off-spin and leg-spin are distinct bowling techniques, supporting the development of two different coaching models in spin bowling.     

How much does lower body strength impact Paralympic running performance?

Objectives: Development of evidence-based methods of Paralympic classification requires research quantifying the relative strength of association between ratio-scaled measures of impairment and athletic performance. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent to which muscle strength affects running performance in runners with and without brain impairment. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Participants were 41 male runners: 13 with brain impairments (RBI) and 28 non-disabled (NDR). All participants completed a maximal 60-m sprint and a novel battery of three lower limb isometric strength tests. Results: RBI showed significantly lower strength scores compared with NDR on the more affected side in leg flexion (176 vs. 243?N), leg extension (993 vs. 1661?N) and plantarflexion (824 vs. 1457?N). Significant differences were also seen on the less affected side in plantarflexion (1072 vs. 1508?N). RBI were significantly slower in the acceleration phase (0–15?m) (3.2?s?±?0.3?vs. 2.8?s?±?0.2) and top speed phase (30?60?m) (4.3?s?±?0.6?vs. 3.8?s?±?0.3). Correlation analysis showed stronger relationships between strength and running performance in RBI than NDR; however, the correlations were not significant. Conclusions: This study evaluated measures to assess strength for the purposes of classification and found that the measures were significantly different in RBI compared with NDR indicating the tests were able to capture strength impairment in this population. This study indicates that strength may be an important impairment type to assess in this population, as impairments of muscle strength may influence the outcome of running performance in athletes with more severe impairments.     

Placing wireless tablets in clinical settings for patient education

Objective

The authors explored the feasibility and possible benefit of tablet-based educational materials for patients in clinic waiting areas.

Methods

We distributed eight tablets preloaded with diagnosis-relevant information in two clinic waiting areas. Patients were surveyed about satisfaction, usability, and effects on learning. Technical issues were resolved.

Results

Thirty-seven of forty patients completed the survey. On average, the patients were satisfied in all categories.

Conclusions

Placing tablet-based educational materials in clinic waiting areas is relatively easy to implement. Patients using tablets reported satisfaction across three domains: usability, education, and satisfaction.     

Access to human,animal, and environmental journals is still limited for the One Health community

Objective

“One Health” is an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments they share that relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. The authors'' objective was to evaluate the extent of open access (OA) to journal articles in a sample of literature from these domains. We hypothesized that OA to articles in human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature.

Methods

A One Health seminar series provided fifteen topics. One librarian translated each topic into a search strategy and searched four databases for articles from 2011 to 2012. Two independent investigators assigned each article to human health, the environment, animal health, all, other, or combined categories. Article and journal-level OA were determined. Each journal was also assigned a subject category and its indexing evaluated.

Results

Searches retrieved 2,651 unique articles from 1,138 journals; 1,919 (72%) articles came from 406 journals that contributed more than 1 article. Seventy-seven (7%) journals dealt with all 3 One Health domains; the remaining journals represented human health 487 (43%), environment 172 (15%), animal health 141 (12%), and other/combined categories 261 (23%). The proportion of OA journals in animal health (40%) differed significantly from journals categorized as human (28%), environment (28%), and more than 1 category (29%). The proportion of OA for articles by subject categories ranged from 25%–34%; only the difference between human (34%) and environment (25%) was significant.

Conclusions

OA to human health literature is more comparable to animal health than hypothesized. Environmental journals had less OA than anticipated.Keywords (Medical Subject Headings) Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Access to Information, Veterinary Medicine, Environment, Environmental Health, Medicine“One Health” is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to solve complex problems at the diverse interfaces shared by humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The One Health approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments that they share relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. Although there is a growing body of literature about the development of the One Health concept as documented by Pepper, Carrigan, Shurtz, and Foster [2], this literature is not the same as the combination of literature from the three domains that is applied in service of One Health. Every discipline related to One Health has its unique mindset and language, with corresponding lists of acronyms that are frequently an impediment to effective communication across the participating professions. Relevant papers guiding a One Health approach may never specifically use “One Health” as a term or concept.To promote better communication and collaboration among health professionals and environmental scientists, a public monthly One Health Intellectual Exchange Group (IEG) hosted by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was launched in 2009. In 2011, faculty from the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, University of North Carolina''s Gillings School for Global Public Health, Duke Global Health Institute, and Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University expanded the IEG series into a weekly seminar course with eight One Health focus areas [3]. The eight focus area modules were the following: an introduction to One Health; environmental health and ecology; the human and animal bond; zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases; food and water safety; disease surveillance, informatics, and disaster preparedness; benefits of comparative medicine; and policy and education (Appendix A, online only). Each seminar speaker recommended papers to read prior to the session to provide a foundation for the topic because student backgrounds and majors were quite diverse. Represented student majors included master''s of public health, master''s of animal science, doctor of veterinary medicine, graduate-level environmental sciences, and undergraduate-level biochemistry, engineering, and biology.Open access (OA) to relevant literature is very important to scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary problems. The One Health Proof of Concept Workgroup found that few studies assess outcomes in human, animal, and environmental spheres simultaneously [4], making it important to be able to access articles from each of the three domains to get a more complete picture.The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of OA to journal articles in a sample of literature relevant to One Health from the human, animal, and environmental domains. Working in a college of veterinary medicine and supporting faculty, staff, and students addressing interdisciplinary problems under the One Health umbrella [5], the authors were familiar with the extent of OA in human biomedical and public health literature and the literature of veterinary medicine but were less familiar with environmental journals. In light of general availability of environmental information and OA to publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives, we thought it likely that environmental literature would be relatively open compared to the other subject areas. Therefore, we hypothesized OA to articles from human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature. We chose to look at article-level subject categorization and access, as well as journal-level categorization and access, because they might differ. Article-level access relates more to authors'' decisions about OA for a content domain, while journal-level access and subject categorization are driven by publishers and associations. Understanding the distinction and having data would inform our efforts to promote increased OA to this literature.     

Silent Majority: Childhood Vaccinations and Antecedents to Communicative Action

The topic of childhood vaccinations has received much news media attention recently, prompting scholars to examine how the public has responded. In light of this news, and the deep divide that seems to exist between parents who support childhood vaccinations and those who do not, this study examines how and why individuals may involve themselves in communication about vaccinations, particularly on social media or in other online environments. Focusing on the concept of communicative action and drawing from spiral of silence and other research, a survey of mothers (N = 455) found that those who do not support childhood vaccinations are more likely to engage in communication about the issue, including information seeking, attending, forefending, permitting, forwarding, and sharing. In addition, issue importance and affective and cognitive involvement help drive communicative action regarding childhood vaccinations, which could affect public opinion or public perceptions of the issue. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

STUDENTS' PERCEPTION OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: A PILOT STUDY INTO SOME DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CLINICAL SCHOOLS IN THE U.K.

The importance of the ethos or learning environment of a training institution is increasingly being appreciated in terms of its effect on learning process and outcome. This paper reports upon the development of an inventory to measure medical students’ perceptions of their learning environment and upon its pilot use to contrast their experiences in five British medical schools. Broad similarities were found between the medical schools upon some dimensions of the questionnaire, but a number of substantial differences are also reported. It is concluded that it is by no means difficult to develop an instrument which can identify important differences between institutions’ learning milieux. However, reservations are expressed about making other than tentative conclusions from the details of the findings of similarities and differences: the desirability of conducting a more comprehensive study is emphasised.     

What’s in a name: dimensions of social learning in teacher groups

Induced by a literature review, this paper presents a framework of dimensions and indicators highlighting the underpinning aspects and values of social learning within teacher groups. Notions of social networks, communities of practice and learning teams were taken as the main perspectives to influence this social learning framework. The review exercise resulted in four dimensions: (1) practice, (2) domain and value creation, (3) collective identity and (4) organization. The indicators corresponding to these dimensions serve as the foundation for understanding social learning in practice. The framework of dimensions and indicators can be of assistance for researchers as well as teacher groups that aim to assess their views on social learning and analyse whether these views fit the learning goals of the group or that adjustments are required. In this way, learning processes within groups of teachers can be improved.     

Curricular Differences and Unidimensionality of Achievement Test Data: An Exploratory Analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a linear factor analytic method commonly used to investigate violation of the item response theory (IRT) unidimensionality assumption is sensitive to measurable curricular differences within a school district and to examine the possibility of differential item performance for groups of students receiving different instruction. For grades 3 and 6 in reading and mathematics, personnel from two midwestern school systems that regularly administer standardized achievement tests identified the formal textbook series used and provided ratings of test-instructional match for each school building (classroom). For both districts, the factor analysis results suggested no differences in percentages of variance for large first factors and relatively small second factors across ratings or series groups. The IRT analyses indicated little, if any, differential item performance for curricular subgroups. Thus, the impact of factors that might be related to curricular differences was judged to be minor.     

Outside school time: an examination of science achievement and non-cognitive characteristics of 15-year olds in several countries

Elementary and secondary students spend more hours outside of class than in formal school and thus have more time for interaction with everyday science. However, evidence from a large international survey, Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD 2012), found a negative relationship between number of hours attending after-school science and science assessment scores in many countries, raising questions about why. The secondary analysis of the 2006, 2009, and 2012 PISA surveys found that in most Western countries the longer students attended after-school science programs (in a typical week), the lower their PISA standardized science test score, but the higher their positive attitudes toward future science careers, interest in science, and self-confidence in science. Several potential hypotheses for this relationship are examined and rejected. Further analysis of a causal relationship between frequent attendance in after-school programs and student achievement and attitudes should clearly identify the content of the program so that the analysis could distinguish experiences closely related to regular school curricula from the informal science activities that are not. A new analysis also should include carefully designed longitudinal surveys to test the effectiveness of informal experiences on later life choices in career and study.