Sexual harassment is a sensitive and pervasive topic in higher education. Programs and institutions have the responsibility to protect the students from sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2011). While much attention has been focused toward on-campus interactions (i.e., professor/student, student/student), many students participate in off-campus fieldwork and internships associated with coursework, where the students are still protected under Title IX. The purpose of this discussion is to define sexual harassment, summarize research regarding sexual harassment in a fieldwork setting, consider how sexual harassment affects students, and identify resources to help programs identify and respond to sexual harassment.
Anne C. Russ, Dani M. Moffit, and Jamie L. Mansell
Dani M. Moffit, Jamie L. Mansell, and Anne C. Russ
Temple University Owls Athletic Training Society (OATS), committed to education and community involvement, formed a relationship with Lanning Square Elementary School (LSE). Located less than 10 miles from campus in Camden, NJ, a high incidence of poverty, violence, and one-parent families is the norm. Through a grant, OATS adopted the fifth-grade classes at LSE for 1 year, beginning with letter exchanges between OATS students and elementary students. OATS traveled to LSE for their holiday party, met their pen pals, and provided healthy snacks. In the spring, the LSE completed a health/wellness unit and visited Temple. Students shared several health activities including learning about bones/muscles in the anatomy laboratory, stretching properly, and exercising. They received lunch and Temple mementos. OATS raised money the following year to continue the project. This allowed OATS and administrators to participate positively in our community, promote diversity, and introduce healthy lifestyles to youngsters.
Jonathan I. Hochstetler, Anne C. Russ, Ryan Tierney, and Jamie L. Mansell
Focused Clinical Question: In athletic training, what is the percentage of workplace bullying compared to the percentage in nursing? Clinical Bottom Line: There is evidence that workplace bullying is prevalent in the athletic training and nursing professions.
Melanie A. Mason, Anne C. Russ, Ryan T. Tierney, and Jamie L. Mansell
Context: Exercise can cause fluctuations in blood glucose control in type 1 diabetics. For athletes with type 1 diabetes, maintenance of blood glucose within an ideal range may be difficult.Objective: To determine, in individuals with type 1 diabetes, the effectiveness of the closed loop control system versus the open loop control system in keeping blood glucose levels in the ideal range with exercise. Data Sources: A search of PubMed was conducted in June of 2020 using the Boolean phrases: (closed loop control system OR artificial pancreas) AND type 1 diabetes AND exercise AND ideal range AND adolescents, artificial pancreas AND glucose prediction AND exercise. Study Selection: Titles were reviewed for relevance, the abstract was then assessed for applicability, and finally the full text was examined. Articles were included that examined the percent of time in the ideal blood glucose range when exercise occurred during that day. Articles were excluded that didn’t compare the closed loop and open loop control systems and articles that did not involve exercise. Data Extraction: The PEDro scale was used to determine the methodological quality of the included studies. The measure addressed was the percent of time in the ideal blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL. 95% Confidence Intervals and Cohen’s D were calculated for each article. Data Synthesis: The search yielded 268 articles and 3 were selected for inclusion. The two randomized controlled trials scored 9/10 on the PEDro scale and the randomized two-arm crossover clinical trial scored 9/10 on the PEDro scale. Percent time spent in the ideal blood glucose range when exercise was performed was significantly higher in the closed loop group versus the open loop group in each of the three studies. In one randomized control trial, mean time in the ideal range was 71.3% (SD = 17.6, 95% CI = 62.5, 80.10) in the closed loop group versus 64.7% (SD = 13.3, 95% CI = 58.1–71.4) in the open loop group. Cohen’s D was 0.4. In the second randomized control trial, mean time in the ideal range was 73.5% (SD = 8.4, 95% CI = 70.1, 76.9) for the closed loop group versus 50% (SD = 26.8, 95% CI = 39.1, 60.9). Cohen’s D was 1.2. The two-arm crossover clinical trial resulted in a mean time in target range of 84.1% (SD = 11.5, 95% CI = 79.0, 89.2) in the closed loop group versus 68.7% (SD = 13.9, 95% CI = 62.5, 74.9) in the open loop group. Cohen’s D was 1.2. Conclusions: For adolescents with type 1 diabetes who exercise, the closed loop control system maintains blood glucose levels in the ideal range for a longer percent of time versus an open loop system. Each patient should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with his/her healthcare team. Future research should examine the closed loop control system on specific energy systems.