Learning to Cycle: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Generational Comparison.

Background: Learning to cycle is an important milestone for children, but the popularity of cycling and the environmental factors that promote the development and practice of this foundational movement skill vary among cultures and across time. This present study aimed to investigate if country of residence and the generation in which a person was born influence the age at which people learn to cycle. Methods: Data were collected through an online survey between November 2019 and December 2020. For this study, a total of 9,589 responses were obtained for adults (self-report) and children (parental report) living in 10 countries (Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Finland, Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Mexico, Croatia, and the Netherlands). Participants were grouped according to their year of birth with 20-year periods approximately corresponding to 3 generations: 1960-79 (generation X; n = 2,214); 1980-99 (generation Y; n = 3,994); 2000-2019 (generation Z; n = 3,381). Results: A two-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of country, F(9,8628) = 90.17, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.086, and generation, F(2,8628) = 47.21, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.122, on the age at which individuals learn to cycle. Countries with the lowest learning age were the Netherlands, Finland and Belgium and countries with the highest learning age were Brazil and Mexico. Furthermore, the age at which one learns to cycle has decreased across generations. There was also a significant country x generation interaction effect on learning age, F(18,8628) = 2.90, p < 0.001; however, this effect was negligible ( ηp2 = 0.006). Conclusions: These findings support the socio-ecological perspective that learning to cycle is a process affected by both proximal and distal influences, including individual, environment and time.

An international stakeholder survey of the role of chiropractic qualifying examinations: A qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Many countries require examinations as a gateway to chiropractic licensure; however, the relevance of these exams to the profession has not been explored. The purposes of this study were to analyze perceptions of international stakeholders about chiropractic qualifying examinations (CQEs), observe if their beliefs were in alignment with those that society expects of professions, and suggest how this information may be used when making future decisions about CQEs. METHODS: We designed an electronic survey that included open-ended questions related to CQEs. In August 2019, the survey was distributed to 234 international stakeholders representing academic institutions, qualifying boards, students, practitioners, association officers, and others. Written comments were extracted, and concepts were categorized and collapsed into 4 categories (benefits, myths, concerns, solutions). Qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: The response rate was 56.4% representing 43 countries and yielding 775 comments. Perceived benefits included that CQEs certify a minimum standard of knowledge and competency and are part of the professionalization of chiropractic. Myths included that CQEs are able to screen for future quality of care or ethical practices. Concerns included a lack of standardization between jurisdictions and uncertainty about the cost/value of CQEs and what they measure. Solutions included suggestions to standardize exams across jurisdictions and focus on competencies. CONCLUSION: International stakeholders identified concepts about CQEs that may facilitate or hinder collaboration and efforts toward portability. Stakeholder beliefs were aligned with those expected of learned professions. This qualitative analysis identified 9 major themes that may be used when making future decisions about CQEs.

The effects of a single session of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy in terms of physical performance test symmetry in asymptomatic athletes: a single-blinded, randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Musculoskeletal disorders in athletes, including spinal biomechanical dysfunctions, are believed to negatively influence symmetry. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recognised as a safe and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders, but there is little evidence about whether it can be beneficial in symmetry. Therefore, this study aimed to measure the effects of lumbar SMT in symmetry. METHODS: Forty asymptomatic athletes participated in the study. The randomisation procedure was performed according to the following group allocation: group 1 (SMT) and group 2 (SHAM). Each participant completed a physical activity questionnaire, and also underwent clinical and physical evaluation for inclusion according to eligibility criteria. Statistical significance (P<0.05) between groups and types of therapy were calculated by physical performance tests symmetry (static position, squat and counter movement jump (CMJ), pre- and post-SMT and SHAM. There were 14 trials of three symmetry tests for each participant, for a total of 560 trials. RESULTS: Lumbar SMT produced immediate effects in symmetry in the static position; however, the same effects were not found in squat and CMJ on symmetry 1. Therefore, our results showed a significant difference in pre- (mean 16.3%) and post-lumbar SMT (mean 3.7%) in static symmetry. However, symmetry 2 showed no statistical significant differences for any of the tests and intervention groups. No statistically significant effects in symmetry pre- to post-SHAM were found in any of the tests. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found in lumbar SMT, but only for static symmetry. These findings suggest that SMT was effective in producing immediate effects in symmetry in the static position, but none in dynamic tests. Future studies could address our study's limitations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER NUMBER: NCT03361592.

Creating European guidelines for Chiropractic Incident Reporting and Learning Systems (CIRLS): relevance and structure.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the heads of the Executive Council of the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU) and the European Academy of Chiropractic (EAC) involved in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) process for the chiropractic profession, set out to establish European guidelines for the reporting of adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment. There were a number of reasons for this: first, to improve the overall quality of patient care by aiming to reduce the application of potentially harmful interventions and to facilitate the treatment of patients within the context of achieving maximum benefit with a minimum risk of harm; second, to inform the training objectives for the Graduate Education and Continuing Professional Development programmes of all 19 ECU member nations, regarding knowledge and skills to be acquired for maximising patient safety; and third, to develop a guideline on patient safety incident reporting as it is likely to be part of future CEN standards for ECU member nations. OBJECTIVE: To introduce patient safety incident reporting within the context of chiropractic practice in Europe and to help individual countries and their national professional associations to develop or improve reporting and learning systems. DISCUSSION: Providing health care of any kind, including the provision of chiropractic treatment, can be a complex and, at times, a risky activity. Safety in healthcare cannot be guaranteed, it can only be improved. One of the most important aspects of any learning and reporting system lies in the appropriate use of the data and information it gathers. Reporting should not just be seen as a vehicle for obtaining information on patient safety issues, but also be utilised as a tool to facilitate learning, advance quality improvement and to ultimately minimise the rate of the occurrence of errors linked to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Before a reporting and learning system can be established it has to be clear what the objectives of the system are, what resources will be required and whether the implementing organisation has the capacity to operate the system to its full advantage. Responding to adverse event reports requires the availability of experts to analyse the incidents and to provide feedback in a timely fashion. A comprehensive strategy for national implementation must be in place including, but not limited to, presentations at national meetings, the provision of written information to all practitioners and the running of workshops, so that all stakeholders fully understand the purposes of adverse event reporting. Unless this is achieved, any system runs the risk of failure, or at the very least, limited usefulness.