This study compared the efficacy of 4 different hamstring-stretching techniques. Flexibility can be achieved by a variety of stretching techniques, yet little research has been performed on the most effective method. The 2 basic types include active stretching, in which range of motion is increased through voluntary contraction, and passive stretching, in which range of motion is increased through external assistance. The 2 types of active stretching include neuromobilization and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF). Our study aims to determine which type of stretching technique is most effective in improving hamstring length. One hundred subjects between the ages of 21 and 57 were enrolled in the study. Intrarater reliability of hamstring length measurement was performed using 10 subjects. All 100 subjects were included in a randomized controlled trial of 5 different groups comparing different hamstring-stretching techniques. Outcome measures, including hamstring length and perceived level of hamstring tightness, were recorded on all subjects initially, at 4 weeks, and at 8 weeks. After 4 weeks of stretching, there was a statistically significant improvement in hamstring length (p < 0.05) using active stretches as compared with passive stretches. From weeks 4 through 8, hamstring length for the active stretching groups decreased. After 8 weeks of stretching, the straight leg raise (SLR) passive stretch group had the greatest improvement in hamstring length. There was no correlation between hamstring flexibility and age, initial tightness, or frequency of exercise per week. Improvement in hamstring flexibility was greatest for the SLR passive stretch. Also, using PNF in the 90/90 active stretch provided better knee range-of-motion improvements than the 90/90 passive methods did.

The objective of this study was to validate the clinical application of a pain mechanism classification system (PMCS) in clinical practice. We analyzed data abstracted from the medical records of patients who were treated in the outpatient clinics of a large urban rehabilitation hospital in Chicago. We hypothesized that there would be good agreement between the PMCS determined by trained therapists and the PMCS category assigned based on a computer-generated statistical model using patients' signs and symptoms. Using cluster analysis, when we assumed five groups, 97% of patients could be classified. Sensitivity and specificity results with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the categories using the physical therapist assigned categories (PMCS) as the criterion standard. Sensitivity for four of the five categories (inflammatory, ischemia, peripheral neurogenic, and other ranged from 72.0 to 83.1%). For the central mechanism, sensitivity was much lower at 15%. Specificity for the five categories ranged from 72.4% (ischemia) to 98.8% (central). This study provides empirical support for recent findings in the literature that the peripheral components of a PMCS can be implemented consistently in an outpatient pain clinical practice.

No abstract

<p>Harmful Digital Communications have become a pervasive and serious problem in New Zealand. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill aims to address this problem in a number of ways. This paper focuses on the civil enforcement regime and the criminal offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication established by the Bill. It considers these aspects of the Bill in light of the right to freedom of expression, and analyses whether they constitute a justified limitation on that right. By applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 5 analysis from Hansen v R, the paper discovers that the civil enforcement regime is a justified limitation, but the new criminal offence is not. The paper concludes that the inclusion of a public interest defence in the offence would allow it to effectively ameliorate the harm caused by online abuse without impinging on freedom of expression more than is reasonably necessary.</p>

<p>Harmful Digital Communications have become a pervasive and serious problem in New Zealand. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill aims to address this problem in a number of ways. This paper focuses on the civil enforcement regime and the criminal offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication established by the Bill. It considers these aspects of the Bill in light of the right to freedom of expression, and analyses whether they constitute a justified limitation on that right. By applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 5 analysis from Hansen v R, the paper discovers that the civil enforcement regime is a justified limitation, but the new criminal offence is not. The paper concludes that the inclusion of a public interest defence in the offence would allow it to effectively ameliorate the harm caused by online abuse without impinging on freedom of expression more than is reasonably necessary.</p>