Ithaca College

Ithaca College
Not a member yet
    16767 research outputs found

    Junior Recital: Allison Quade, violin

    Get PDF

    Occupational Therapy and Substance Use Disorders: Exploring Potential Roles Within Current Settings

    Get PDF
    Illicit drug use within the United States has more than doubled within the previous decade with 53.2 million individuals using illicit drugs in 2018, and 20.3 million individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses. Due to the nature of SUDs, the rehabilitation process can be complex, utilizing a mix of pharmaceutical and psychological therapies. Due to the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders; including impairments within social, recreational, and vocational performance, treatment of SUDs falls within the scope of occupational therapy practice, however research regarding the use of occupational therapy services for the treatment of SUDs is limited. Less than 3% of occupational therapy practitioners report working with this population. This exploratory research used a quantitative survey design to collect descriptive data regarding the staffing and interventions provided in treatment for substance use disorders, and the practice settings providing these services. Results show that while SUD treatment teams rarely utilize occupational therapists, the interventions provided, including areas of self-care, community mobility, social participation, employment, and health literacy, fall within the occupational therapy scope of practice and important in the treatment of SUDs. This research shows that there is a gap between how important various occupation-based interventions were perceived to be for the treatment of SUDs, and how often they were provided. Based on these findings, having occupational therapists in SUD treatment teams may bolster the impact of treatment for relapse prevention and behavioral modification in individuals with SUDs

    A Biomechanical Comparison of the Drop Vertical Jump and the Roundoff Back Handspring

    Get PDF
    Female non-contact ACL injury rates are high in gymnastics. Gymnastics rules prioritize aesthetic quality over athlete safety, contributing to injury risk along with biological risk factors. Gymnasts experience ground reaction forces up to fourteen times body weight when landing, increasing risk of injury. Developing an effective and efficient tool to assess injury risk in gymnasts may be important. The drop vertical jump (DVJ) is a “land and go” task often used to screen for lower extremity injury risk in field and court sport athletes as it mimics motions typical of these sports. However, it is not known whether the DVJ parallels “land-and-go” tasks in gymnastics, like the round off back handspring (ROBHS). Therefore, it is unknown whether coaches and clinicians should use the DVJ to screen for lower extremity injury risk in gymnasts. The purpose of this study is to identify differences in lower extremity biomechanics between the DVJ and the ROBHS and to correlate Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores of the DVJ to landing mechanics during the ROBHS. Fifteen female gymnasts completed three trials of the ROBHS and the DVJ. Trials were captured using a three-dimensional motion capture system consisting of twenty high speed cameras capturing at a speed of 240 Hz (Vicon MX™T-series cameras, Vicon Motion Analysis Inc., Oxford, UK). Additionally, trials of the DVJ and ROBHS were captured with a two-dimensional video camcorder in the frontal and sagittal planes. Angular kinematic data was processed from the three-dimensional capture and DVJ trials were scored using the LESS from the two-dimensional video. Paired samples T-tests were used to compare dorsiflexion, knee flexion and abduction, and hip flexion, abduction, and internal rotation between the DVJ and ROBHS. Results showed significant differences in most of these angular measures, iv except frontal plane motion. In the frontal plane, there was no significant difference in knee abduction between the DVJ and ROBHS at initial contact (IC) (t(16) =1.09, p =.29, d = 0.26) or maximum displacement (Dmax)(t(16) = 2.04, p =.06, d = 0.50). Thus, it may be appropriate to use the DVJ to screen gymnasts for frontal plane injury risk. However, future research is necessary to determine if this screening tool can predict future injury risk

    Refractions Through the Tiling of a Plane

    No full text

    12,938

    full texts

    16,767

    metadata records
    Updated in last 30 days.
    Ithaca College
    Access Repository Dashboard
    Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇