A comparison of command style teaching and movement education with respect to teacher behavior and student involvement

A comparison of the command style of teaching and the movement education style teaching for one instructional unit in elementary physical education with respect to teacher behavior and student involvement was the purpose of this investigation. [This is an excerpt from the abstract. For the complete abstract, please see the document.

An accurate formula for the period of a simple pendulum oscillating beyond the small-angle regime

A simple approximation formula is derived here for the dependence of the period of a simple pendulum on amplitude that only requires a pocket calculator and furnishes an error of less than 0.25% with respect to the exact period. It is shown that this formula describes the increase of the pendulum period with amplitude better than other simple formulas found in literature. A good agreement with experimental data for a low air-resistance pendulum is also verified and it suggests, together with the current availability/precision of timers and detectors, that the proposed formula is useful for extending the pendulum experiment beyond the usual small-angle oscillations.Comment: 15 pages and 4 figures. to appear in American Journal of Physic

Ma Blushin\u27 Roise : Ma Posie Sweet

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/3527/thumbnail.jp

I\u27m a Respectable Workin\u27 Girl

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/3513/thumbnail.jp

Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes : an overview of systematic reviews

Funding: This overview was funded as part of a wider project by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (HTA project: 15/171/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or UK Department of Health and Social Care.Background: Reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetes-related foot ulceration is essential to inform clinical practice. Well-conducted systematic reviews that synthesise evidence from all relevant trials offer the most robust evidence for decision-making. We conducted an overview to assess the comprehensiveness and utility of the available secondary evidence as a reliable source of robust estimates of effect with the aim of informing a cost-effective care pathway using an economic model. Here we report the details of the overview. [PROSPERO Database (CRD42016052324)]. Methods: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Epistomonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Health Technology Assessment Journals Library were searched to 17th May 2021, without restrictions, for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive interventions in people with diabetes. The primary outcomes of interest were new primary or recurrent foot ulcers. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included reviews. Findings: The overview identified 30 systematic reviews of patient education, footwear and of-loading, complex and other interventions. Many are poorly reported and have fundamental methodological shortcomings associated with increased risk of bias. Most concerns relate to vague inclusion criteria (60%), weak search or selection strategies (70%) and quality appraisal methods (53%) and inexpert conduct and interpretation of quantitative and narrative evidence syntheses (57%). The 30 reviews have collectively assessed 26 largely poor-quality RCTs with substantial overlap. Interpretation: The majority of these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetic foot ulceration are at high risk of bias and fail to provide reliable evidence for decision-making. Adherence to the core principles of conducting and reporting systematic reviews is needed to improve the reliability of the evidence generated to inform clinical practice.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe