Pol Nomikos

Purpose Exercise is shown to be effective in Parkinson’s Disease (PD), but there is still controversy over which type of exercise is most effective. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of High-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus aerobic training in motor and non-motor symptoms in PD. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed since February 2024 to July 2025 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Discovery @Bolton, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, PubMed, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. Data extracted by a single reviewer and cross checked by another. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality of reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TiDieR) checklist. Results The search yielded 9 studies involving a total of 263 people with PD in the early stages. The results from the risk of bias showed that 88.8% of studies were judged to be of moderate to high quality. The completeness of intervention reporting showed overall moderate (66.1%) quality of reporting. Conclusion HIIT showed improvement in physiological, cognitive, and overall quality of life (QoL) outcomes when compared to aerobic exercise. HIIT also showed significant improvement in cognitive function. PROSPERO Registration Number : CRD42023478541, 02 November 2023.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a cohort randomised-controlled trial (RCT) of a nurse-led package of care for knee pain and determine treatment sequence for use in a future trial.
Methods: Open label, three-arm, single-centre, mixed-methods, feasibility cohort RCT.
Adults aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-severe knee pain for ≥3 months were eligible.
Participants were randomised into groups A (non-pharmacological treatment first), B (pharmacological treatment first), or group C (usual care). The intervention was delivered over 26-weeks. Outcomes were dropout rate, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity, ability to collect outcome data and treatment acceptability.
Results: Seventeen participants were randomised and enrolled into each of groups A and B (5.2% recruitment rate), and 174 randomised to group C. Participant characteristics at randomisation were comparable across the three arms. COVID-19 paused the study from March–November-2020. Participants enrolled in groups A and B before March-2020 were withdrawn at restart. Of the 20 participants enrolled after restart, 18 completed the study (10% dropout). The nurse reported delivering most aspects of the intervention with high fidelity. Participants viewed the package of care as structured, supportive and holistic, they learnt about self-managing knee pain, and could engage with and follow the non-pharmacological treatment. Most found the non--pharmacological treatment more useful than the pharmacological treatment, preferring to receive it before or alongside analgesia. Many self-reported questionnaires were not fully completed.
Conclusions: The nurse-led package of care for knee pain was acceptable with low dropout, although the cohort RCT design may not be feasible for a definitive trial.

OBJECTIVES: Interprofessional education is recognized for its potential for collaboration and teamwork, reflecting clinical practice; however, existing literature for simulation-based interprofessional education does not include Physician Associate (PA) students. This initiative aimed to explore the students? perception of interprofessional clinical simulation for PA students and allied health professional (AHP) students as part of our program development.
METHODS: A high-fidelity simulation session was designed and conducted for volunteering students from the PA, paramedic science, and physiotherapy courses. We used a mixed-method electronic questionnaire consisting of 15 statements rated on a numerical rating scale (0-5) and four open-ended questions with unlimited free-text responses to explore student perceptions. Inductive thematic analysis was used for qualitative analysis. The session design was underpinned by Allport?s (intergroup) contact hypothesis with an emphasis on mutual intergroup differentiation.
RESULTS: Forty-six students participated in the simulation teaching, with 48% (n=22) providing feedback. Overall student perception was mainly positive toward the interprofessional simulation; however, some barriers to learning were recognized. Based on the evaluation of our initiative and existing literature, we propose 5 top tips to promote an effective learning experience for students. (1) Understand the importance of interprofessional collaboration. (2) Establish clear roles. (3) Plan the scenarios in advance. (4) Maintain equal status between groups. (5) Provide clear instructions and expectations.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study of high-fidelity interprofessional simulation involving PA and AHP students. We successfully explored student perception which highlighted aspects that can impact learning. This pilot study demonstrated that interprofessional simulation is a feasible and acceptable form of learning for our students and highlighted how to improve future interprofessional simulation teaching sessions.