Background and Purpose-Despite strong evidence for hand preference and its impact on motor performance, its influence on stroke rehabilitation has not been routinely considered. Previous research demonstrates that patients with hemiparetic stroke use their ipsilesional, nonparetic arm 5 to 6 times more frequently than their paretic arm, but it is unknown if such use varies with laterality of hemiparesis. The purpose of our study was to determine if the right arm is used more frequently in right-handed patients with stroke. Methods-We assessed relative use of the right, left, and both arms with wrist accelerometers on patients with unilateral, paretic stroke matched for degree of paresis (12 with right hemisphere damage, 17 with left hemisphere damage) and 25 neurologically intact control participants as they performed the Arm Motor Ability Test. Results-We showed: (1) ipsilesional arm use was greater after right hemisphere damage than left hemisphere damage; (2) the left hemisphere damage group used both arms together more often than the right hemisphere damage group but less often than the control group; and (3) both stroke groups used their contralesional, paretic arm to the same degree. Conclusions-These findings emphasize the influence of hand preference on arm use after stroke for the ipsilesional but not the contralesional arm. Although both stroke groups used their ipsilesional more than their contralesional arm, the difference was greater for the right hemisphere damage group who used their ipsilesional arm 4 times more frequently than their contralesional arm, whereas the left hemisphere damage group used their ipsilesional arm 2 times more frequently than their contralesional arm.

Context The purpose of this review is to summarize the empirical research on neighborhood-level factors and dating violence among adolescents and emerging adults to guide future research and practice. Evidence acquisition In 2015, 20 articles were identified through a search of the literature using PubMed. Eligible articles included those that: (1) had been published in a peer-reviewed journal since 2005; (2) reported a measure of association between at least one neighborhood-level factor and dating violence; and (3) had a study population of youth aged <26 years. We abstracted information about the studies, including measurement of dating violence and neighborhood factors, and measures of effect. Evidence synthesis Results were summarized into three categories based on the aspect of neighborhood which was the focus of the work: demographic and structural characteristics (n=11), neighborhood disorder (n=12), and social disorganization (n=8). There was some evidence to suggest that neighborhood disadvantage is associated with dating violence, but very little evidence to suggest that residence characteristics (e.g., racial heterogeneity) are associated with dating violence. Results do suggest that perceived neighborhood disorder is associated with physical dating violence perpetration, but do not suggest that it is associated with physical dating violence victimization. Social control and community connectedness are both associated with dating violence, but findings on collective efficacy are mixed. Conclusions Existing research suggests that neighborhood factors may be associated with dating violence. However, there is a limited body of research on the neighborhood context of dating violence and more rigorous research is needed.

No abstract

Institutional review boards assume that questionnaires asking about "sensitive" topics (e.g., trauma and sex) pose more risk to respondents than seemingly innocuous measures (e.g., cognitive tests). We tested this assumption by asking 504 undergraduates to answer either surveys on trauma and sex or measures of cognitive ability, such as tests of vocabulary and abstract reasoning. Participants rated their positive and negative emotional reactions and the perceived benefits and mental costs of participating; they also compared their study-related distress with the distress arising from normal life stressors. Participants who completed trauma and sex surveys, relative to participants who completed cognitive measures, rated the study as resulting in higher positive affect and as having greater perceived benefits and fewer mental costs. Although participants who completed trauma and sex surveys reported slightly higher levels of negative emotion than did participants who completed cognitive measures, averages were very low for both groups, and outliers were rare. All participants rated each normal life stressor as more distressing than participating in the study. These results suggest that trauma and sex surveys pose minimal risk.

No abstract