| Title |
An investigation to assess ankle mobility in healthy individuals from the application of multi‐component compression bandages and compression hosiery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13047-016-0151-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leanne Atkin, John Stephenson, Grace Parfitt, Sarah Reel, Karen Ousey, Brandon Fallon |
| Abstract |
An investigation was undertaken to compare the effect of multi-component compression bandages and compression hosiery kits on individuals' range of ankle motion whilst wearing typical and medical footwear, and barefoot. A convenience sample of 30 healthy individuals recruited from the staff and student population at the University of Huddersfield, UK. Plantarflexion/dorsiflexion range of ankle motion (ROAM) was measured in participants over 6 steps in every combination of typical, medical and no footwear; and multi-component bandages, compression hosiery and no garments. Controlling for age, gender and garments, the use of typical footwear was associated with a mean increase in ROAM of 2.54° at best estimate compared with barefoot; the use of medical footwear was associated with a mean decrease in ROAM of 1.12° at best estimate compared with barefoot. Controlling for age, gender and footwear, the use of bandaging was associated with a mean decrease in ROAM of 2.51° at best estimate compared with no garments. Controlling for age, gender and footwear, the use of hosiery was not associated with a significant change in ROAM compared with no garments. Bandages appear to restrict ROAM more than hosiery when used in conjunction with a variety of footwear types. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 44% |