title: Contraceptive use in lesbian and bisexual women: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health

authors: Ellis, Sonja J.

abstract: Contraceptive use is a key part of sexual and reproductive health for women, yet few studies have explored contraceptive use patterns in lesbian and bisexual women born between 1989 and 1995. Analysing data from an existing cohort study of reproductive-aged women this study explores contraceptive use among lesbian and bisexual women in Australia. Findings of the study showed that lesbians were least likely to use contraceptives compared to heterosexual women and that bisexual women used short-acting hormonal methods at lower rates and long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs) such as IUDs and implants at higher rates than their heterosexual peers. There was also a range of changes in contraceptive use across time including a decrease in use of both short-acting hormonal contraception and LARCs in combination with condoms while the use of LARCs on their own increased. The findings of this study also indicate that young lesbian and bisexual women are not only likely to use more than one type of contraception, but that their choice of contraception is dynamic and likely to change over time. This paper highlights the need for research that specifically explores the underlying reasons for patterns of, and changes in, contraceptive use among lesbian and bisexual women to better understand the contraceptive counselling needs of this group.

text: Contraceptive use in lesbian and bisexual women: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health Contraceptive use is a key part of sexual and reproductive health for women, yet few studies have explored contraceptive use patterns in lesbian and bisexual women born between 1989 and 1995. Analysing data from an existing cohort study of reproductive-aged women this study explores contraceptive use among lesbian and bisexual women in Australia. Findings of the study showed that lesbians were least likely to use contraceptives compared to heterosexual women and that bisexual women used short-acting hormonal methods at lower rates and long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs) such as IUDs and implants at higher rates than their heterosexual peers. There was also a range of changes in contraceptive use across time including a decrease in use of both short-acting hormonal contraception and LARCs in combination with condoms while the use of LARCs on their own increased. The findings of this study also indicate that young lesbian and bisexual women are not only likely to use more than one type of contraception, but that their choice of contraception is dynamic and likely to change over time. This paper highlights the need for research that specifically explores the underlying reasons for patterns of, and changes in, contraceptive use among lesbian and bisexual women to better understand the contraceptive counselling needs of this group.

year: 2026

title: Clinical Implications of Hand Position and Lower Limb Length Measurement Method on Y-Balance Test Scores and Interpretations

authors: Hébert-Losier, Kim

subjects: Science & Technology

abstract: Context: 
The Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQ-YBT) was developed to provide an effective and efficient screen for injury risk in sports. Earlier protocol recommendations for the LQ-YBT involved the athlete placing the hands on the hips and the clinician normalizing scores to lower limb length measured from the anterior-superior iliac spine to the lateral malleolus. The updated LQ-YBT protocol recommends the athlete's hands be free moving and the clinician measure lower limb length to the medial malleolus.
Objective: 
To investigate the effect of hand position and lower limb length measurement method on LQ-YBT scores and their interpretation.
Design: 
Cross-sectional study.
Setting: 
National Sports Institute of Malaysia.
Patients or Other Participants: 
A total of 46 volunteers, consisting of 23 men (age = 25.7 ± 4.6 years, height = 1.70 ± 0.05 m, mass = 69.3 ± 9.2 kg) and 23 women (age = 23.5 ± 2.5 years, height = 1.59 ± 0.07 m, mass = 55.7 ± 10.6 kg).
Intervention(s): 
Participants performed the LQ-YBT with hands on hips and hands free to move on both lower limbs.
Main Outcome Measure(s): 
In a single-legged stance, participants reached with the contralateral limb in each of the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions 3 times. Maximal reach distances in each direction were normalized to lower limb length measured from the anterior-superior iliac spine to the lateral and medial malleoli. Composite scores (average of the 3 normalized reach distances) and anterior-reach differences (in raw units) were extracted and used to identify participants at risk for injury (ie, anterior-reach difference ≥4 cm or composite score ≤94%). Data were analyzed using paired t tests, Fisher exact tests, and magnitude-based inferences (effect size [ES], ±90% confidence limits [CLs]).
Results: 
Differences between hand positions in normalized anterior-reach distances were trivial (t91 = −2.075, P = .041; ES = 0.12, 90% CL = ±0.10). In contrast, reach distances were greater when the hands moved freely for the normalized posteromedial (t91 = −6.404, P < .001; ES = 0.42, 90% CL = ±0.11), posterolateral (t91 = −6.052, P < .001; ES = 0.58, 90% CL = ±0.16), and composite (t91 = −7.296, P < .001; ES = 0.47, 90% CL = ±0.11) scores. A similar proportion of the cohort was classified as at risk with the hands on the hips (35% [n = 16]) and the hands free to move (43% [n = 20]; P = .52). However, the participants classified as at risk with the hands on the hips were not all categorized as at risk with the hands free to move and vice versa. The lower limb length measurement method exerted trivial effects on LQ-YBT outcomes.
Conclusions: 
Hand position exerted nontrivial effects on LQ-YBT outcomes and interpretation, whereas the lower limb length measurement method had trivial effects.

text: Clinical Implications of Hand Position and Lower Limb Length Measurement Method on Y-Balance Test Scores and Interpretations Context: 
The Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQ-YBT) was developed to provide an effective and efficient screen for injury risk in sports. Earlier protocol recommendations for the LQ-YBT involved the athlete placing the hands on the hips and the clinician normalizing scores to lower limb length measured from the anterior-superior iliac spine to the lateral malleolus. The updated LQ-YBT protocol recommends the athlete's hands be free moving and the clinician measure lower limb length to the medial malleolus.
Objective: 
To investigate the effect of hand position and lower limb length measurement method on LQ-YBT scores and their interpretation.
Design: 
Cross-sectional study.
Setting: 
National Sports Institute of Malaysia.
Patients or Other Participants: 
A total of 46 volunteers, consisting of 23 men (age = 25.7 ± 4.6 years, height = 1.70 ± 0.05 m, mass = 69.3 ± 9.2 kg) and 23 women (age = 23.5 ± 2.5 years, height = 1.59 ± 0.07 m, mass = 55.7 ± 10.6 kg).
Intervention(s): 
Participants performed the LQ-YBT with hands on hips and hands free to move on both lower limbs.
Main Outcome Measure(s): 
In a single-legged stance, participants reached with the contralateral limb in each of the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions 3 times. Maximal reach distances in each direction were normalized to lower limb length measured from the anterior-superior iliac spine to the lateral and medial malleoli. Composite scores (average of the 3 normalized reach distances) and anterior-reach differences (in raw units) were extracted and used to identify participants at risk for injury (ie, anterior-reach difference ≥4 cm or composite score ≤94%). Data were analyzed using paired t tests, Fisher exact tests, and magnitude-based inferences (effect size [ES], ±90% confidence limits [CLs]).
Results: 
Differences between hand positions in normalized anterior-reach distances were trivial (t91 = −2.075, P = .041; ES = 0.12, 90% CL = ±0.10). In contrast, reach distances were greater when the hands moved freely for the normalized posteromedial (t91 = −6.404, P < .001; ES = 0.42, 90% CL = ±0.11), posterolateral (t91 = −6.052, P < .001; ES = 0.58, 90% CL = ±0.16), and composite (t91 = −7.296, P < .001; ES = 0.47, 90% CL = ±0.11) scores. A similar proportion of the cohort was classified as at risk with the hands on the hips (35% [n = 16]) and the hands free to move (43% [n = 20]; P = .52). However, the participants classified as at risk with the hands on the hips were not all categorized as at risk with the hands free to move and vice versa. The lower limb length measurement method exerted trivial effects on LQ-YBT outcomes.
Conclusions: 
Hand position exerted nontrivial effects on LQ-YBT outcomes and interpretation, whereas the lower limb length measurement method had trivial effects.

year: 2017-10-01

title: Taku manatawa, taku manapou. The learning of te reo Māori in adulthood: Perceptions of its contribution to overall wellbeing

authors: Rolleston, Jamie Huia

subjects: maori

abstract: Ko te tāhuhu o tēnei whare rangahau ko te toiora o te tangata. Ko te tūāpapa o te whare, ko te reo Māori. E toru ngā pou tūhono i te tāhuhu ki te papa, mō tēnei rangahau ko aua pou ko te oranga wairua, ko te oranga whānau, ko te oranga tinana. Ko tā tēnei rangahau he āta mātai i aua pou e toru e toko ana i te toiora o te tangata, ā, kia mātai hoki i te hononga o te reo Māori ki aua pou e toru me te toiora tangata.
Ko te pātai matua kei te aroaro o tēnei rangahau ko tēnei : He aha ngā hua o te ako i te reo Māori hei reo tuarua mō te hunga pakeke ake i te tekau mā waru tau?
E toru ngā wāhanga o te pātai matua:
1. He aha ngā hua ā-wairua?
2. He aha ngā hua ā-whānau?
3. He aha ngā hua ā-tinana?
E toru hoki ngā huarahi i whāia ai kia rapua he whakautu ki aua pātai. Tuatahi ake, i tirohia ngā mātātuhi maha e hāngai ana ki te toiora tangata (Upoko tuarua), arā, ko ngā kōrero a ngā mātanga o te ao whānui, o te ao Māori hoki kua whakawhārikitia kētia ki runga i tēnei kaupapa. Ka rua, i tīmata āku ake ketuketunga ki tētahi pākiki ā-ipurangi, ā, i tukuna atu tēnā ki te marea kia whai māramatanga mō ngā momo pānga a te reo Māori ki a rātou (Upoko tuatoru). Ka mutu, i uiuitia tokorima ngā tāngata kia rongo ai i ō rātou wheako ako i te reo me ngā hua i puta mai ki a rātou (Upoko tuawhā).
E ai ki te hunga i whai wāhi mai ki tēnei rangahau ko te hua nui o te reo Māori ko te whai hononga ki te ao Māori me te tuakiri Māori. I puta mai tēnei kōrero i roto i te pākiki me ngā uiuinga. He mātotoru ngā kōrero a te hunga nei mō te kimi i te mea ngaro, ā, mā te ako i te reo Māori i kitea te mea i te ngaro, anō nei i whakakīkīngia tētahi rua ki roto i te tangata. I roto i te pākiki me ngā uiuinga i kumea mai ai i te hunga nei ngā kōrero mō ō rātou oranga i mua i te ako i te reo, i te tīmatanga o te ako i te reo, me te nāianei hoki, ā, he mārakerake noa te kitea he hoa haere te whanaketanga o te reo Māori me te whanaketanga o te taha Māori o te tangata me tōna māramatanga ki a ia anō, ā, mā reira e piki ai he taha toiora o te tangata. I tua atu i wēnei hua, he maha kē atu ngā hua o te reo i puta mai ai i te rangahau nei, ko te whai hononga ki te taiao, ki te whakapapa, ko te whakapiki māia, ā, ko te whai mahi hoki ētahi o ngā hua i tino kitea i roto i ngā whakautu a tēnei hunga.

text: Taku manatawa, taku manapou. The learning of te reo Māori in adulthood: Perceptions of its contribution to overall wellbeing Ko te tāhuhu o tēnei whare rangahau ko te toiora o te tangata. Ko te tūāpapa o te whare, ko te reo Māori. E toru ngā pou tūhono i te tāhuhu ki te papa, mō tēnei rangahau ko aua pou ko te oranga wairua, ko te oranga whānau, ko te oranga tinana. Ko tā tēnei rangahau he āta mātai i aua pou e toru e toko ana i te toiora o te tangata, ā, kia mātai hoki i te hononga o te reo Māori ki aua pou e toru me te toiora tangata.
Ko te pātai matua kei te aroaro o tēnei rangahau ko tēnei : He aha ngā hua o te ako i te reo Māori hei reo tuarua mō te hunga pakeke ake i te tekau mā waru tau?
E toru ngā wāhanga o te pātai matua:
1. He aha ngā hua ā-wairua?
2. He aha ngā hua ā-whānau?
3. He aha ngā hua ā-tinana?
E toru hoki ngā huarahi i whāia ai kia rapua he whakautu ki aua pātai. Tuatahi ake, i tirohia ngā mātātuhi maha e hāngai ana ki te toiora tangata (Upoko tuarua), arā, ko ngā kōrero a ngā mātanga o te ao whānui, o te ao Māori hoki kua whakawhārikitia kētia ki runga i tēnei kaupapa. Ka rua, i tīmata āku ake ketuketunga ki tētahi pākiki ā-ipurangi, ā, i tukuna atu tēnā ki te marea kia whai māramatanga mō ngā momo pānga a te reo Māori ki a rātou (Upoko tuatoru). Ka mutu, i uiuitia tokorima ngā tāngata kia rongo ai i ō rātou wheako ako i te reo me ngā hua i puta mai ki a rātou (Upoko tuawhā).
E ai ki te hunga i whai wāhi mai ki tēnei rangahau ko te hua nui o te reo Māori ko te whai hononga ki te ao Māori me te tuakiri Māori. I puta mai tēnei kōrero i roto i te pākiki me ngā uiuinga. He mātotoru ngā kōrero a te hunga nei mō te kimi i te mea ngaro, ā, mā te ako i te reo Māori i kitea te mea i te ngaro, anō nei i whakakīkīngia tētahi rua ki roto i te tangata. I roto i te pākiki me ngā uiuinga i kumea mai ai i te hunga nei ngā kōrero mō ō rātou oranga i mua i te ako i te reo, i te tīmatanga o te ako i te reo, me te nāianei hoki, ā, he mārakerake noa te kitea he hoa haere te whanaketanga o te reo Māori me te whanaketanga o te taha Māori o te tangata me tōna māramatanga ki a ia anō, ā, mā reira e piki ai he taha toiora o te tangata. I tua atu i wēnei hua, he maha kē atu ngā hua o te reo i puta mai ai i te rangahau nei, ko te whai hononga ki te taiao, ki te whakapapa, ko te whakapiki māia, ā, ko te whai mahi hoki ētahi o ngā hua i tino kitea i roto i ngā whakautu a tēnei hunga.

year: 2015