Key result
Cold and tepid foot-baths fail to significantly increase SDNN versus control.
Why the study?
Does foot-bath at diverse temperatures improve stress in physical therapy students experiencing clinical practice?
Does foot-bath at diverse temperatures improve stress in physical therapy students experiencing clinical practice?
Immediate foot-baths at cold and tepid temperatures showed non-significant increases in SDNN for stress relief in physical therapy students.
Cold foot-bath may improve HRV stress markers in trainees; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to apply foot therapy at diverse temperatures to students in the Department of Physical Therapy who are experiencing clinical practice to find the most effective foot-bath temperatures for stress relief. METHODS: Sixty four students in the department of physical therapy who were undergoing the course on clinical practice participated in the present study. SDNN, TP, LF, and HF were measured to compare the control group, cold group, tepid group, and the hop group. The data were analyzed through analysis of covariance and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Although SDNN increased in the cold group and the tepid group, the differences were not statistically
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2016) studied Stress during clinical practice (n=64). Foot-bath at diverse temperatures (cold, tepid, hot) vs. Control group was evaluated on Stress relief measured by SDNN, TP, LF, and HF. Foot-bath at cold and tepid temperatures increased SDNN, although the differences were not statistically significant.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: