Portland Community College

Abstract BACKGROUND Lumbosacral radicular pain (LRP) is a highly disabling condition frequently accompanied by pain-related fear, reduced physical activity, and difficulty engaging in daily activities. Although mindfulness-based and movement-based interventions are recommended for chronic low back pain, few programs have been specifically designed for individuals with LRP or developed using patient-centered, theory-informed methods. Before large-scale evaluation, early-phase work is needed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of such interventions and their associated study procedures. This protocol describes the development and pilot testing of Move-MORE, a multicomponent, digitally delivered mindfulness and movement intervention for adults with LRP and elevated kinesiophobia. METHODS This study uses an iterative convergent mixed methods design comprising two sub-studies. Study 1 is a qualitative-dominant intervention development study involving patient focus groups ( n = 10) and clinician interviews ( n = 10) conducted using the Person-Based Approach to refine intervention content and delivery. Study 2 is a single-arm pilot feasibility trial ( n = 32) enrolling adults aged 18–75 with LRP and elevated kinesiophobia. Move-MORE will be delivered virtually in a group format with primary outcomes of feasibility and acceptability, including recruitment, retention, adherence, engagement, safety, and data completeness. Acceptability will be assessed using validated satisfaction and expectancy measures and qualitative exit interviews. A comprehensive set of patient-reported outcomes, ecological momentary assessment, actigraphy, quantitative sensory testing, and biomechanical assessments will be collected to characterize participants, evaluate data collection procedures, and inform outcome selection and design considerations for a future randomized controlled trial. Quantitative analyses of patient reported outcomes and objective assessments will be descriptive. Finally, patient partners were involved throughout the study using a patient-engaged research approach, including participation in focus groups to inform intervention development, review of participant-facing materials, and input on interpretation and dissemination of study findings. DISCUSSION This protocol outlines a systematic, patient-engaged approach to developing and testing the feasibility of a novel multicomponent intervention tailored to individuals with LRP. Findings will inform refinement of the Move-MORE intervention, feasibility benchmarks, and methodological decisions needed to support subsequent efficacy testing in a randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION : Clinicaltrials.gov #: NCT07125027

Addressing the urgent crisis of climate change requires a global movement ofengaged and energized citizens to promote and demand an energy transformation. This chapter is a call to be part of that movement. Activists play a critical role in building public momentum and pushing for systemic change. I argue that astronomersare well placed to do both. Taking action is worthwhile, rewarding, and even joyful, as I describe through my own journey and with practical tips and resources to kickstart, or ramp up, your own activism.

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter Facebook Reddit LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Reprints and Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Leonid Minkin, Anthony Zable; Rotational-to-Translational Kinetic Energy Transfer for a Rolling Spool. Phys. Teach. 1 December 2023; 61 (9): 788–791. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0121812 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAmerican Association of Physics TeachersThe Physics Teacher Search Advanced Search |Citation Search

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeThis article refers to:Ethics Considerations Regarding Artificial Womb Technology for the Fetonate Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

S teven Bell’s October 2023 C&RL News article, “We’re All About Openness: Except When it Comes to Our Workspaces,” is propaganda for open offices masquerading as “an objective look at the open office environment.” Bell minimizes the costs that open offices pose to employee well-being and to the functioning of the organization, and falsely equates the move to open offices with greater openness and equity. While I don’t disagree that there are ways to use design to mitigate some of the harm to employees and their ability to work productively in open offices, research suggests there will still be significant harm and it will not be felt equally. As a fellow open office dweller, I felt it was important to offer another perspective, supported by scholarship on the topic. Bell suggests in his article that the verdict on open offices is mixed and that it’s just as easy to find evidence supporting open offices as critiquing them. In looking at systematic reviews on the topic, including several that have been published over the past three years, I found this to be far from the case. In fact, the scholarly consensus on open offices is uniformly negative and the move to open offices comes with many detrimental impacts on employee well-being, organizational health, and work output.