This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. Objective: To evaluate the blinding effectiveness of the Park sham acupuncture device using participants' ability to discriminate between the real and sham acupuncture needles.Design: The design was a yes-no experiment. Judgments were made on whether the real or sham acupuncture needle was administered.Setting: University laboratory. Participants: Healthy, acupuncture-naive university students and staff (Nϭ20; median age, 22y; range, 18 -48y) recruited through convenience sampling.Interventions: Participants made yes-no judgments on whether the real or sham needle was administered to 8 acupoints (4 traditional and 4 nontraditional) along the Pericardium meridian (Pericardium 3 to Pericardium 6) on the dominant forearm.Main Outcome Measures: The accuracy index, d=, of participants' ability to discriminate between the real and sham needles (discriminability) was computed for the traditional alone, the nontraditional alone, and a combination of both types of acupoints.Results: The participants' d= between the real and sham needles was not statistically significant from d= equal to 0 for the combined traditional and nontraditional acupoints comparison and the nontraditional acupoints alone comparison (combined, t 19 ϭ1.20, Pϭ.25; nontraditional, t 19 ϭ.16, Pϭ.87). However, the participants' d= was statistically significant from d= equal to 0 for the traditional acupoints comparison (t 19 ϭ2.096, Pϭ.049).Conclusions: The Park sham acupuncture device appears to be effective in blinding participants to real acupuncture intervention when it is applied to the nontraditional acupoints and when traditional and nontraditional acupoints are combined on the forearm along the pericardium meridian. However, the sham device does not appear to blind participants effectively when traditional acupoints alone are used for the same context.
Physical activity counselling has demonstrated effectiveness at increasing physical activity when delivered in healthcare, but is not routinely practised. This study aimed to determine (1) current use of physical activity counselling by physiotherapists working within publicly funded hospitals; and (2) influences on this behaviour. A cross-sectional survey of physiotherapists was conducted across five hospitals within a local health district in Sydney, Australia. The survey investigated physiotherapists’ frequency of incorporating 15 different elements of physical activity counselling into their usual healthcare interactions, and 53 potential influences on their behaviour framed by the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model. The sample comprised 84 physiotherapists (79% female, 48% <5 years of experience). Physiotherapists reported using on average five (SD:3) elements of physical activity counselling with at least 50% of their patients who could be more active. A total of 70% of physiotherapists raised or discussed overall physical activity, but less than 10% measured physical activity or contacted community physical activity providers. Physiotherapists reported on average 25 (SD:9) barriers influencing their use of physical activity counselling. The most common barriers were related to “opportunity”, with 57% indicating difficulty locating suitable community physical activity opportunities and >90% indicating their patients lacked financial and transport opportunities. These findings confirm that physical activity counselling is not routinely incorporated in physiotherapy practice and help to identify implementation strategies to build clinicians’ opportunities and capabilities to deliver physical activity counselling.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.