ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Benefits of sprint interval training performed in hypoxia (SIH) compared to normoxia (SIN) have been assessed by studies mostly conducted around 3000 m of simulated altitude. The present study aims to determine whether SIH at an altitude as high as 4000 m can elicit greater adaptations than the same training at 2000 m, 3000 m or sea-level. METHODS: Thirty well-trained endurance male athletes (18-35 years old) participated in a six-week repeated sprint interval training program (30 s all-out sprint, 4 min 30 s recovery; 4-9 repetitions, 2 sessions/week) at sea-level (SL, n = 8), 2000 m (FiO2 16.7%, n = 8), 3000 m (FiO2 14.5%, n = 7) or 4000 m (FiO2 13.0%, n = 7). Aerobic and anaerobic exercise components were evaluated by an incremental exercise test, a 600 kJ time trial and a Wingate test before and after the training program. RESULTS: After training, peak power output (PPO) during the incremental exercise test increased (~6%) without differences between groups. The lactate threshold assessed by Dmax increased at 2000 m (+14 ± 12 W) and 4000 m (+12 ± 11 W) but did not change at SL and 3000 m. Mean power during the Wingate test increased at SL, 2000 m and 4000 m, although peak power increased only at 4000 m (+38 ± 38 W). CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that SIH using 30 s sprints is as efficient as SIN for improving aerobic and anaerobic qualities. Additional benefits such as lactate-related adaptations were found only in SIH and Wingate peak power only increased at 4000 m. This finding is of particular interest for disciplines requiring high power output, such as in very explosive sports.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To explore the quality of interprofessional teamwork in acute geriatric care and to build a model of team types. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter study. SETTING: Acute geriatric units in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Team members of different professional backgrounds. MEASUREMENTS: Perceptions of interprofessional teamwork among team members of 55 acute geriatric units in Belgium were measured using a survey covering collaborative practice and experience, managerial coaching and open team culture, shared reflection and decision-making, patient files facilitating teamwork, members' belief in the power of teamwork, and members' comfort in reporting incidents. Cluster analysis was used to determine types of interprofessional teamwork. Professions and clusters were compared using analysis of variance. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 60%. Of the 890 respondents, 71% were nursing professionals, 20% other allied health professionals, 5% physicians, and 4% logistic and administrative staff. More than 70% of respondents scored highly on interprofessional teamwork competencies, consultation, experiences, meetings, management, and results. Fewer than 55% scored highly on items about shared reflection and decision-making, reporting incidents from a colleague, and patient files facilitating interprofessional teamwork. Nurses in this study rated shared reflection and decision-making lower than physicians on the same acute geriatric units (P < .001). Using the mean score on each of the six areas, four clusters that differed significantly in all areas were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis and scree plot analysis (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Interprofessional teamwork in acute geriatric units is satisfactory, but shared reflection and decision-making needs improvement. Four types of interprofessional teamwork are identified and can be used to benchmark the teamwork of individual teams.
