Development of a Pilates Teaching Framework from an international survey of teacher practice.

OBJECTIVE: Pilates is used increasingly in a variety of clinical settings. However, there is lack of clarity in the literature as to what is meant by the term. Teachers incorporating apparatus based on the designs of Joseph Pilates (1883-1967) into their practice refer to themselves as Comprehensive Teachers, and this group divides itself further into Classical and Contemporary practice. The aim of this research was to explore the meanings of these terms with Comprehensive Teachers and to develop a framework that reflects current views and practice. METHOD: Online international survey of Pilates Teachers through closed Facebook forums. Open questions were used to elicit views of the definition and practice of Pilates, and how standards should be set across the sector. RESULTS: Of 109 participants, 35% were based in the UK and 32% in the USA; 48% identified as Classical teachers, 32% as Contemporary, 5% as both and 15% as Matwork instructors. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed agreement on the scope and content of Classical and Contemporary Comprehensive Pilates, however the discourse indicated there might be stereotyping about each other's practice. Classical teachers, for example, spoke of their own practice as authentic while Contemporary teachers used terms such as strict and inflexible for Classical practice. However, members of either group may incorporate both Classical and Contemporary approaches within their practice. We have designed a Pilates Teaching Framework to take into account the types of apparatus, the types of exercises and the order in which the exercises are executed. CONCLUSIONS: A framework that emphasises Pilates teaching rather than teacher practice is proposed for consistency and clarity when describing Pilates in professional and public contexts.

Comparison of competency priorities between UK occupational physicians and occupational health nurses.

OBJECTIVES: The competencies required of occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health nurses (OHNs) separately have been studied in various countries but little research has made direct comparisons between these two key occupational health (OH) professional groups. The aim of this study was to compare current competency priorities between UK OPs and OHNs. METHODS: A modified Delphi study conducted among professional organisations and networks of UK OPs and OHNs. This formed part of a larger Delphi, including international OPs. It was undertaken in two rounds (round 1-'rating', round 2-'ranking'), using a questionnaire based on available OH competency guidance, the literature, expert panel reviews and conference discussions. RESULTS: In each round (rating/ranking), 57/49 and 48/54 responses were received for OPs and OHNs respectively. The principle domain (PD) competency ranks were very highly correlated (Spearman's r=0.972) with the same PDs featuring in the top four and bottom three positions. OPs and OHNs ranked identically for the top two PDs (good clinical care and general principles of assessment and management of occupational hazards to health). Research methods was ranked lowest by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study has observed a high level of agreement among UK OPs and OHNs on current competency priorities. The 'clinically focused' competency priorities likely reflect that although OH practice will broaden in response to various factors, traditional 'core' OH activities will still be required. These mutually identified priorities can serve to strengthen collaboration between these groups, develop joint education/training programmes and identify common professional development opportunities.

Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To explore the feasibility and cost effectiveness of screening and delivery of a brief intervention for hazardous drinking employees. METHODS: A pilot randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention delivered by an Occupational Health nurse versus no delivery of brief intervention (control group) conducted in a Local Authority Council (LCA) in the United Kingdom. Changes in quality of life and economic indicators were measured by the EQ-5D. RESULTS: 627 employees were screened of whom 163 (26.01%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a total of 57 (35%) agreeing to participate. No significant differences were found between the groups for baseline demographics or levels/patterns of alcohol consumption. A statistically significant effect was found in the mean AUDIT scores over time (F=8.96, p=0.004) but not for group (F=0.017, p=0.896), and no significant interaction was found (F=0.148, p=0.702). The cost of each intervention was calculated at £12.48, the difference in service costs was calculated at £344.50 per person; that is there was a net saving of health and other care costs in the intervention group compared to the control group. The QALYs fell in both intervention and control groups, the difference -0.002-(-0.010) yields a net advantage of the intervention of 0.008 QALYs. CONCLUSION: The main results from this pilot study suggest that alcohol brief interventions delivered in the workplace may offer the potential to reduce alcohol-related harm and save public sector resources. A fully powered multi-centre trial is warranted to contribute to the current evidence base and explore further the potential of alcohol brief interventions in the workplace. In a full trial the recruitment method may need to be re-considered.