Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background The effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy. Methods The review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1st, 2023. Studies that directly compared free-weight vs. machine-based strength training for a minimum of 6 weeks in adults (18–60 yrs.) were included. Results Thirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751). Conclusion No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals

The anatomy of safe surgical teams: an interview-based qualitative study among members of surgical teams at tertiary referral hospitals in Norway

Abstract Background In spite of the global implementation of surgical safety checklists to improve patient safety, patients undergoing surgical procedures remain vulnerable to a high risk of potentially preventable complications and adverse outcomes. The present study was designed to explore the surgical teams’ perceptions of patient safety culture, capture their perceptions of the risk for adverse events, and identify themes of interest for quality improvement within the surgical department. Methods This qualitative study had an explorative design with an abductive approach. Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted between 10/01/23 and 11/05/23. The participants were members of surgical teams (n = 17), general and orthopedic surgeons (n = 5), anesthesiologists (n = 4), nurse anesthetists (n = 4) and operating room nurses (n = 4). Middle managers recruited purposively from general and orthopedic surgical teams in two tertiary hospitals in Norway, aiming for a maximum variation due to gender, age, and years within the specialty. The data material was analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s method for reflexive thematic analysis to generate patterns of meaning and develop themes and subthemes. Results The analysis process resulted in three themes describing the participants’ perceptions of patient safety culture in the surgical context: (1) individual accountability as a safety net, (2) psychological safety as a catalyst for well-being and safe performance in the operating room, and (3) the importance of proactive structures and participation in organizational learning. Conclusions This study provided an empirical insight into the culture of patient safety in the surgical context. The study highlighted the importance of supporting the individuals’ competence, building psychological safety in the surgical team, and creating structures and culture promoting a learning organization. Quality improvement projects, including interventions based on these results, may increase patient safety culture and reduce the frequency of adverse events in the surgical context

Additional file 1 of The anatomy of safe surgical teams: an interview-based qualitative study among members of surgical teams at tertiary referral hospitals in Norway

Additional file 1. Mind Map

Patient safety in surgical environments: Cross-countries comparison of psychometric properties and results of the Norwegian version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How hospital health care personnel perceive safety climate has been assessed in several countries by using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety (HSOPS). Few studies have examined safety climate factors in surgical departments per se. This study examined the psychometric properties of a Norwegian translation of the HSOPS and also compared safety climate factors from a surgical setting to hospitals in the United States, the Netherlands and Norway.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This survey included 575 surgical personnel in Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, an 1100-bed tertiary hospital in western Norway: surgeons, operating theatre nurses, anaesthesiologists, nurse anaesthetists and ancillary personnel. Of these, 358 returned the HSOPS, resulting in a 62% response rate. We used factor analysis to examine the applicability of the HSOPS factor structure in operating theatre settings. We also performed psychometric analysis for internal consistency and construct validity. In addition, we compared the percent of average positive responds of the patient safety climate factors with results of the US HSOPS 2010 comparative data base report.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The professions differed in their perception of patient safety climate, with anaesthesia personnel having the highest mean scores. Factor analysis using the original 12-factor model of the HSOPS resulted in low reliability scores (r = 0.6) for two factors: "adequate staffing" and "organizational learning and continuous improvement". For the remaining factors, reliability was ≥ 0.7. Reliability scores improved to r = 0.8 by combining the factors "organizational learning and continuous improvement" and "feedback and communication about error" into one six-item factor, supporting an 11-factor model. The inter-item correlations were found satisfactory.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The psychometric properties of the questionnaire need further investigations to be regarded as reliable in surgical environments. The operating theatre personnel perceived their hospital's patient safety climate far more negatively than the health care personnel in hospitals in the United States and with perceptions more comparable to those of health care personnel in hospitals in the Netherlands. In fact, the surgical personnel in our hospital may perceive that patient safety climate is less focused in our hospital, at least compared with the results from hospitals in the United States.</p