The Effect of Water Depth on Energy Expenditure and Perception of Effort in Female Subjects While Walking

The purpose of this study was to compare energy expenditure (EE), heart rate, and perceived effort during walking in water at several depths versus land in female participants. Eighteen females walked on three separate days on a land treadmill (Land) and in a water treadmill (ATM) at 30° C at 6 speeds. Water depth was at the xiphoid (xip), 10 cm below (-10 cm), and 10 cm above xip (+10 cm). Heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) were recorded. RPE overall (RPE-O) and RPE legs (RPE-L) were solicited following each bout. Regardless of walking speed, EE and HR were influenced by water depth, with -10 cm significantly greater than xip, +10 cm and Land, and xip significantly greater than +10 cm and Land (all p \u3c 0.001). Land EE and HR were similar to +10 cm. RPE-O was significantly higher for -10 cm vs. xip, +10 cm, and Land, while xip was greater than Land. RPE-L was greater for -10 cm vs. xip, +10 cm and Land, while xip was greater than +10 cm & Land. Our results showed that small changes in water depth influences exercise EE, HR and RPE. These differences are attributed to a changing relationship between drag resistances and buoyancy in water

Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse

Background: intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others.Objectives: to assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse.Search methods: in April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field.Selection criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it).Data collection and analysis: two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events.Main results: we included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy.Risk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy