RESUMEN
Introduction: Walking while texting can create gait disturbances that may increase fall risk, especially in outdoors environment. To date, no study has quantified the effect of texting on motor behavior using different dynamic tasks in outdoor environments. We aimed to explore the impact of texting on dynamic tasks in indoor and outdoor environments. Methods: Twenty participants (age 38.3 ± 12.5 years, 12 F) had a Delsys inertial sensor fixed on their back and completed walk, turn, sit-to-stand, and stand-to-sit subtasks with and without texting in both indoor and outdoor environments. Results: While there was no difference in texting accuracy (p = 0.3), there was a higher dual-tasking cost in walking time with texting outdoors than indoors (p = 0.008). Discussion: Dual tasking has a greater impact on walking time outdoors compared to an indoor environment. Our findings highlight the importance of patient education concerning dual-tasking and pedestrian safety in clinical settings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This study determined and compared the knowledge of nosocomial infections among clinical health care students at the College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana. METHODS: Two hundred undergraduate health care students from four academic programs participated in the study. The study sample was drawn from each academic program by a simple random sampling technique using the class directory from each course. The Infection Control Standardized Questionnaire (ICSQ) was used to assess the knowledge of students about three main domains, ie, hand hygiene, nosocomial infections, and standard precautions. A maximum score of 50 was obtainable, and respondents with scores ≥70% were classified as having a satisfactory knowledge. The response on each item was coded numerically to generate data for statistical analysis. Comparison of knowledge on the domains among categories of students was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, while associations between courses of study and knowledge about nosocomial infections were determined using the Chi-square test. All statistical tests had a significant level of 5% (P < 0.05) RESULTS: Overall mean percentage score of the participants on ICSQ was 65.4 ± 2.58, with medical, physiotherapy, radiography, and nursing students recording mean percentage scores of 70.58 ± 0.62, 65.02 ± 2.00, 64.74 ± 1.19, and 61.31 ± 2.35, respectively. The main source of information about the prevention of nosocomial infections as cited by participants was their routine formal training in class. There was no significant association (P > 0.05) between course of study and knowledge of students about preventive measures for nosocomial infections. CONCLUSION: The students sampled demonstrated moderate knowledge of nosocomial infections and this was acquired largely through formal classroom training. These findings underscore the need for more emphasis on education about this important source of infection in the clinical training curriculum.
