| Literature DB >> 35047231 |
Piotr Łapiński1, Aleksandra Truszczyńska-Baszak2, Justyna Drzał-Grabiec3, Adam Tarnowski4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for a study of possible relationship between serving a prison sentence and developing postural stability dysfunction. The aim of the study was to analyze postural stability of physically inactive prisoners. The study group consisted of 24 male prisoners aged 34.6 ± 7.02 years, imprisoned in closed prison and 30 healthy, non-active physically, aged 36.9 ± 7.5 years, who consisted control group. The subjects were imprisoned for a mean of 105.43 ± 58.48 months.Entities:
Keywords: Balance disorders; Physical fitness; Postural stability; Prisoners
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047231 PMCID: PMC8757370 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
The anthropometric data of the study and control group.
| Group | Age | Body height | Body mass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prisoners ( | Mean | 34.64 | 181.44 | 82.68 |
| Standard deviation | 7.02 | 5.32 | 10.81 | |
| Control ( | Mean | 36.87 | 179.50 | 74.56 |
| Standard deviation | 7.46 | 8.30 | 32.96 | |
| Total ( | Mean | 35.85 | 180.38 | 78.70 |
| Standard deviation | 7.28 | 7.11 | 24.41 |
Note:
None of the differences has been significant on the 0.05 level.
Figure 1Diagram flow of participants.
Figure 2Presentation of measurement equipment- bi-modular stabilometric platform CQStab2P.
Differences between prisoners and general population in stability parameters registered with eyes open.
| Group | SP-EO (mm) | SPAP-EO (mm) | SPML-EO (mm) | MA-EO (mm) | MAAP-EO (mm) | MAML-EO (mm) | MaxAP-EO (mm) | MaxML-EO (mm) | MV-EO (mm/s) | MVAP-EO (mm/s) | MVML-EO (mm/s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prisoners | Mean | 157.68 | 112.24 | 86.56 | 1.96 | 1.84 | 0.46 | 6.31 | 1.86 | 5.26 | 3.75 | 2.89 |
| Std. Dev. | 26.18 | 27.59 | 11.68 | 1.01 | 0.97 | 0.25 | 3.22 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.39 | |
| Median | 153.00 | 102.00 | 86.00 | 1.70 | 1.60 | 0.40 | 4.70 | 1.90 | 5.10 | 3.40 | 2.90 | |
| Control | Mean | 128.57 | 97.57 | 63.43 | 1.79 | 1.53 | 0.65 | 5.22 | 2.19 | 4.29 | 3.26 | 2.13 |
| Std. Dev. | 25.71 | 23.94 | 12.15 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.50 | 2.22 | 1.25 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.40 | |
| Median | 126.50 | 91.50 | 60.00 | 1.55 | 1.30 | 0.50 | 5.05 | 2.00 | 4.25 | 3.05 | 2.00 | |
| U | 154.50 | 254.50 | 70.00 | 336.50 | 295.00 | 290.50 | 322.00 | 334.50 | 157.50 | 254.50 | 72.50 | |
| Z | −3.73 | −2.04 | −5.16 | −0.652 | −1.35 | −1.44 | −0.90 | −0.69 | −3.68 | −2.04 | −5.12 | |
| Two-tail p | <.001 | 0.042 | <0.001 | 0.515 | 0.175 | 0.149 | 0.370 | 0.493 | <0.001 | 0.041 | <0.001 | |
| Effect size | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.48 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.48 | |
Differences between prisoners and general population in stability parameters with eyes closed.
| Group | SP-EC (mm) | SPAP-EC (mm) | SPML-EC (mm) | MA-EC (mm) | MAAP-EC (mm) | MAML-EC (mm) | MaxAP-EC (mm) | MaxML-EC (mm) | MV-EC (mm/s) | MVAP-EC (mm/s) | MVML-EC (mm/s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prisoners | Mean | 180.37 | 141.58 | 82.88 | 1.80 | 1.70 | .39 | 5.90 | 1.58 | 6.00 | 4.73 | 2.77 |
| Std. Dev. | 42.89 | 44.43 | 12.45 | 0.822 | 0.817 | 0.17 | 2.15 | 0.714 | 1.44 | 1.48 | 0.42 | |
| Median | 178.00 | 138.00 | 83.00 | 1.70 | 1.65 | 0.40 | 5.95 | 1.45 | 5.90 | 4.60 | 2.80 | |
| Control | Mean | 196.43 | 167.37 | 73.00 | 2.12 | 1.94 | 0.57 | 7.75 | 2.60 | 6.55 | 5.57 | 2.43 |
| Std. Dev. | 62.12 | 61.93 | 14.46 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.32 | 3.82 | 2.45 | 2.07 | 2.07 | 0.47 | |
| Median | 193.00 | 161.00 | 72.00 | 2.05 | 1.80 | 0.50 | 7.10 | 2.05 | 6.45 | 5.40 | 2.40 | |
| U | 324.50 | 275.50 | 213.00 | 260.50 | 279.00 | 194.50 | 253.00 | 205.00 | 320.50 | 277.50 | 205.00 | |
| Z | −0.62 | −1.47 | −2.56 | −1.74 | −1.41 | −2.94 | −1.86 | −2.70 | −0.69 | −1.44 | −2.71 | |
| Two-tail p | 0.536 | 0.141 | 0.010 | 0.083 | 0.158 | 0.003 | 0.062 | 0.007 | 0.491 | 0.151 | 0.007 | |
| Effect size | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.13 | |
SP statistics for SP parameter registered with eyes open and close in three empirical taxonomy groups.
| Empirical taxonomy | SP-EO (mm) | SP-EC (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Mean | 123.33 | 150.85 |
| Std. Dev. | 18.54 | 29.07 | |
| N | 27 | 27 | |
| B | Mean | 175.38 | 209.69 |
| Std. Dev. | 17.47 | 27.59 | |
| N | 16 | 16 | |
| C | Mean | 134.82 | 254.00 |
| Std. Dev. | 21.04 | 56.26 | |
| N | 11 | 11 | |
| Total | Mean | 141.09 | 189.30 |
| Std. Dev. | 29.36 | 54.54 | |
| N | 54 | 54 | |
Figure 3Mean values of SP for three empirical taxonomy groups.
The relationship between empirical taxonomy and imprisoning.
| Group | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prisoners | Control | ||||
| Empirical taxonomy | A | Frequency | 11 | 16 | 27 |
| % z Empirical taxonomy | 40.7% | 59.3% | 100.0% | ||
| B | Frequency | 11 | 5 | 16 | |
| % z Empirical taxonomy | 68.8% | 31.3% | 100.0% | ||
| C | Frequency | 2 | 9 | 11 | |
| % z Empirical taxonomy | 18.2% | 81.8% | 100.0% | ||
| Total | Frequency | 24 | 30 | 54 | |
| % z Empirical taxonomy | 44.4% | 55.6% | 100.0% | ||
Figure 4Scatterplot of SP with eyes open and closed in two groups, concerning empirical taxonomy.