Daily Archives: 6 August 2024

Can Your Choice of Workstation Impact Your Health and Productivity?

While it might seem hyperbolic to claim that “sitting is the new smoking,” extensive research supports that sedentary individuals encounter more health issues compared to those who are more active. Office employees who spend the majority of their eight-hour days seated are more likely to experience problems such as daytime fatigue, hypertension, and musculoskeletal pain than their more active peers. Although tools like standing desks have proven effective in reducing these physical ailments and enhancing productivity, the optimal type of workstation—whether stand-biased, sit-stand, or traditional—for promoting physical activity and preventing health issues remains unclear.

A team led by Tricia Lynn Salzar, DrPH, Kaysey Aguilar, PhD, and colleagues from the Texas A&M University School of Public Health conducted an in-depth study to address these uncertainties. They monitored the computer usage and activity levels of 61 office workers over ten days to assess discomfort and develop potential remedies. Published in the IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, their research stands out for using computer utilization as a marker of work productivity across different workstation types.

The study involved 79 full-time adult office workers at a major university, monitored from 2019 to 2020. Participants were divided into three groups according to the type of workstation used: stand-biased, sit-stand, or traditional, with the latter serving as the control group. Stand-biased workstations typically feature a fixed surface at standing elbow height. They may include a drafting stool or chair with an extended cylinder, whereas sit-stand workstations consist of desktop units or those with a fully adjustable height surface paired with a standard office chair.

Researchers collected various data, including demographic information, how participants utilized office accessories like footrests, monitor arms, and keyboard trays, and the duration of standing at their workstations. They also gathered feedback on discomfort in various body areas, such as the neck, back, and shoulders. Computer usage was monitored through hidden data-logging software to measure productivity. At the same time, physical activity was tracked using an activity sensor that quantified activity levels and energy expenditures throughout a workweek.

The analysis revealed no significant differences in keystrokes among the groups, but the stand-biased group reported a higher word count and more errors than the traditional group. Furthermore, 24-hour activity data showed that the stand-biased group spent more time standing and less time sitting and transitioned less frequently per hour compared to their traditional counterparts. Regarding discomfort, 65 per cent of all participants reported neck issues, and 80 per cent of those at conventional workstations experienced lower back pain, compared to 51.7 per cent in the stand-biased group.

Concluding the study, Aguilar highlighted, “The risk of health problems from sedentary work can be mitigated through alternative desk options such as sit-stand or stand-biased workstations. These solutions not only promote better health but also support the high productivity levels that employers expect.” This reassurance about the potential benefits of these alternative workstations instils confidence in their effectiveness.

More information: Tricia Lynn Salzar et al, Stand-Capable Workstations Reduce Occupational Sedentary Time Among Administrative Workers, IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. DOI: 10.1080/24725838.2024.2362720

Journal information: IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors Provided by Texas A&M University

Increasing Health Equity Through the Inclusion of Nursing Home Residents in Clinical Trials

Leave a Reply

Clinical trials are essential for determining the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments and therapies, yet participant diversity is a significant gap. Notably, the 1.4 million individuals residing in the 15,600 nursing homes across the U.S. are often excluded from these studies despite the high prevalence of conditions like hypertension, depression, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease among them. This oversight is highlighted in a commentary by faculty from the Regenstrief Institute, Indiana University, UCLA, and the universities of North Carolina, Colorado, and Massachusetts, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS). The article emphasizes the necessity of including nursing home residents in clinical trials due to their medical complexity, offering significant challenges and unique insights into medical research.

The authors discuss the advantages of conducting research within nursing home settings and outline the essential components for successful clinical trials. They advocate for creating a dedicated nursing home clinical trials network and stress the importance of incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion principles into trial designs. Corresponding author Kathleen Unroe, M.D., MHA, M.S., a researcher-clinician at the Regenstrief Institute and IU School of Medicine, poses critical questions about the appropriateness and implementation of therapies in nursing homes. She highlights the logistical challenges and the necessity for researchers to adapt their approaches to fit the realities of clinical care in these settings, which were not originally designed to facilitate research.

The commentary addresses several pressing concerns regarding clinical trials in nursing homes, emphasizing the urgent need for such studies. The authors propose a comprehensive framework for establishing a nursing home clinical trials network, which could significantly enhance the quality of medical care provided in these facilities.

Susan Hickman, PhD, another co-author and director of the Regenstrief Institute’s Center for Aging Research, notes nursing home care’s unique aspects, including testing, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. She calls for a greater focus on this critical area within the healthcare continuum, given its essential role in caring for seriously ill adults. The commentary also touches on missed opportunities, such as excluding nursing home residents from COVID-19 therapeutic trials, which could have identified specific challenges related to dosing, administration, and monitoring.

The authors lament the missed opportunities in not including nursing home residents in past trials, such as those for COVID-19 therapeutics. This exclusion could have identified specific dosing, administration, and monitoring issues. Such findings could have spurred the creation of training materials specifically for nursing home staff and promoted the development of consistent policies to identify appropriate candidates and deliver treatments promptly, safely, and optimally.

Dr. Unroe concludes by emphasizing that nursing home residents should have access to evidence-based therapies. When the complexities of conducting trials in such settings are ignored, the result is often a more complex implementation phase. Trials conducted in nursing homes benefit the residents and generate knowledge relevant to the broader senior population, including those in assisted living facilities and those at home. This broad approach to clinical trials is pivotal for transforming care across the entire spectrum of senior healthcare.

More information: Kathleen T. Unroe et al, Evaluation of medical therapies in the nursing home population: Gaps, challenges, and next steps, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.18829

Journal information: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Provided by Regenstrief Institute

Our Minds Are Wired to Learn from Those We Admire

Leave a Reply

Memory plays an essential role in our ability to learn from new experiences and refine our existing knowledge base. We learn from individual events and synthesize these experiences to form new interpretations of our environment. This capability to conclude phenomena beyond our direct experiences is known as memory integration, which enhances learning speed and adaptability. Inês Bramão, an associate professor of psychology at Lund University, provides a practical example of memory integration: Imagine strolling through a park and observing a man with a dog. Later, you see the same dog with a woman in the city. Instinctively, your brain might connect these two individuals as a couple despite never having seen them together. Bramão notes, “Drawing such inferences is both adaptive and beneficial, but there’s always the possibility that our brain might make inaccurate assumptions or exhibit selective memory.”

The source of information significantly influences the effectiveness of memory integration. In experiments conducted by Inês Bramão and her colleagues Marius Boeltzig and Mikael Johansson, participants were tasked with remembering and connecting various objects like bowls, balls, spoons, and scissors. It was found that memory integration was facilitated when the information was presented by someone the participants liked as opposed to someone they disliked. Participants defined ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ based on various factors including political beliefs, academic majors, dietary preferences, and personal interests. This underscores the role of our personal biases in how effectively we integrate and recall information, prompting us to be more introspective and self-aware in our memory processes.

This phenomenon has practical implications, particularly in the political realm, as illustrated by Bramão with a hypothetical example: A political party advocates for raising taxes to improve healthcare services. If an individual who supports this party visits a healthcare facility and notices improvements, they might attribute these enhancements to the tax increase, even if different factors caused them. This tendency to connect information based on pre-existing biases underscores the significant influence of source credibility and personal alignment with the information presenter. It also highlights the need to be cautious and discerning in evaluating the credibility of our information sources.

The broader body of research, as explained by Mikael Johansson, professor of psychology at Lund University, indicates that people process information differently depending on the source. This has profound implications for understanding how fundamental memory processes shape polarization and knowledge resistance. Johansson states, “Our research shows how significant phenomena like polarization can partly be traced back to fundamental principles that govern how our memory works. We are more inclined to form new connections and update our knowledge from information presented by groups we favor, which often align with our pre-existing beliefs and ideas, potentially reinforcing polarized viewpoints.”

Understanding the roots of polarization and resistance to new knowledge through essential brain functions offers a deeper insight into these complex behaviours. It’s not just about social media echo chambers but also about an innate way of processing information that emphasizes how differently we integrate information depending on who is presenting it. This aspect of human cognition highlights the challenges in combating misinformation and the importance of diverse and trustworthy information sources.

Mikael Johansson further elaborates on the real-world implications of these findings: “Particularly striking is that we integrate information differently depending on the source, even when the information is completely neutral. In real life, where information often triggers stronger reactions, these effects could be even more prominent.” This observation suggests that understanding and addressing the cognitive biases that influence how we process and integrate information is crucial for fostering more informed and balanced perspectives in our increasingly polarized society.

More information: Marius Boeltzig et al, Ingroup sources enhance associative inference, Communications Psychology. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-023-00043-8

Journal information: Communications Psychology Provided by Lund University

How Do Our Brains Function During Planning?

Leave a Reply

When we pause to contemplate before making a significant choice, we often envisage various potential outcomes from our options. This “mental simulation” process is fundamental to our everyday decision-making and planning, yet the underlying brain functions remain largely elusive.

International researchers have recently made significant strides in identifying the neural processes involved in planning. Their findings, detailed in Nature Neuroscience, significantly contribute to our understanding of decision-making. They indicate a dynamic interaction between the brain’s prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, enabling us to foresee and evaluate future possibilities to inform our decisions better.

Marcelo Mattar, an assistant professor at New York University’s Department of Psychology and co-author of the study, describes the prefrontal cortex as functioning akin to a ‘simulator’. It mentally explores various scenarios utilising a cognitive map held within the hippocampus. According to Mattar, this investigation highlights the intricate neural and cognitive frameworks underpinning planning, a critical aspect of intelligence in both humans and animals. Enhancing our understanding of these mechanisms could have profound implications for treating conditions that impair decision-making capabilities, offering hope for those affected.

The prefrontal cortex and hippocampus play crucial roles in planning and memory. However, their exact contributions to deliberative decision-making, where careful consideration is required before action, still need to be fully understood.

To probe these neural underpinnings further, Mattar, along with Kristopher Jensen, a computational neuroscientist at University College London, and Guillaume Hennequin, a professor at the University of Cambridge, developed a computational model to simulate brain activity during the planning process. Their collaborative effort, a recurrent neural network (RNN) that adapts based on incoming data, incorporates established theories of planning and introduces complex new elements, such as ‘imagined actions’. This approach is akin to a chess player contemplating a series of moves before deciding, thereby encapsulating how decision-making typically involves assessing the repercussions of various options.

The team validated their model through experiments with humans and laboratory rats, assessing its predictive accuracy against actual behavioural and neural data. They designed a novel experiment in which humans navigated a virtual maze on a computer screen, measuring the time they took to contemplate each move. They compared these findings with neural recordings from rats navigating a similarly configured physical maze, aligning human and animal data to draw comprehensive insights from both.

The results confirmed the validity of the computational model, illustrating a complex interaction between the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus during planning. In human subjects, increased brain activity was observed when participants took longer to consider their moves through the maze. Similarly, the neural responses of rats traversing the maze mirrored the model’s predictions.

Mattar notes that this research sheds light on the brain circuits that allow us to reflect before acting and provides a novel methodological approach by aligning tasks across human and animal studies and computational models. This innovative methodology offers a robust framework for gaining deeper insights into behaviour, reinforcing foundational knowledge about strategic decisions.

More information: Kristopher T. Jensen et al, A recurrent network model of planning explains hippocampal replay and human behavior, Nature Neuroscience. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-024-01675-7

Journal information: Nature Neuroscience Provided by New York University