Pazit Levinger and Keith D. Hill
Kellie C. Huxel Bliven
Erin K. Howie, Justin M. Guagliano, Karen Milton, Stewart A. Vella, Sjaan R. Gomersall, Tracy L. Kolbe-Alexander, Justin Richards and Russell R. Pate
Background: Sport has been identified as one of the 7 best investments for increasing physical activity levels across the life span. Several questions remain on how to effectively utilize youth sport as a strategy for increasing physical activity and improving health in youth. The purpose of this paper is to identify the main research priorities in the areas of youth sport and physical activity for health. Methods: An international expert panel was convened, selected to cover a wide spectrum of topics related to youth sport. The group developed a draft set of potential research priorities, and relevant research was scoped. Through an iterative process, the group reached consensus on the top 10 research priorities. Results: The 10 research priorities were identified related to sport participation rates, physical activity from sport, the contribution of sport to health, and the overall return on investment from youth sport. For each research priority, the current evidence is summarized, key research gaps are noted, and immediate research needs are suggested. Conclusion: The identified research priorities are intended to guide researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to increase the evidence base on which to base the design, delivery, and policies of youth sport programs to deliver health benefits.
Amanda L. Ager, Dorien Borms, Magali Bernaert, Vicky Brusselle, Mazarine Claessens, Jean-Sébastien Roy and Ann Cools
Context: Proprioception deficits contribute to persistent and recurring physical disability, particularly with shoulder disorders. Proprioceptive training is thus prescribed in clinical practice. It is unclear whether nonsurgical rehabilitation can optimize shoulder proprioception. Objectives: To summarize the available evidence of conservative rehabilitation (ie, nonsurgical) on proprioception among individuals with shoulder disorders. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO were systematically searched, from inception until November 24, 2019. Selected articles were systematically assessed, and the methodological quality was established using the Dutch Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized for this review. The conservative treatments were categorized as follows: (1) conventional therapy, (2) proprioceptive training, (3) elastic kinesiology tape, and (4) other passive therapies. Evidence Synthesis: Twelve articles were included, yielding 58 healthy control shoulders and 362 shoulders affected by impingement syndrome, glenohumeral dislocations, nonspecific shoulder pain, rotator cuff dysfunction, or subluxation poststroke. The level of agreement between the evaluators was excellent (84.9%), and the studies were evaluated to be of fair to excellent quality (risk of bias: 28.5%–100%). This review suggests, with moderate evidence, that proprioceptive training (upper-body wobble board or flexible foil training) can improve proprioception in the midterm. No decisive evidence exists to suggest that conventional therapy is of added value to enhance shoulder proprioception. Conflicting evidence was found for the improvement of proprioception with the application of elastic kinesiology tape, while moderate evidence suggests that passive modalities, such as microcurrent electrical stimulation and bracing, are not effective for proprioceptive rehabilitation of the shoulder. Conclusions: Proprioceptive training demonstrates the strongest evidence for the effective rehabilitation of individuals with a shoulder proprioceptive deficit. Elastic kinesiology tape does not appear to affect the sense of shoulder proprioception. This review suggests a possible specificity of training effect with shoulder proprioception.
Michael Eric Dyson
C. Keith Harrison and Jay J. Coakley
Kristin Suorsa, Anna Pulakka, Tuija Leskinen, Jaana Pentti, Andreas Holtermann, Olli J. Heinonen, Juha Sunikka, Jussi Vahtera and Sari Stenholm
Background: The accuracy of wrist-worn accelerometers in identifying sedentary time has been scarcely studied in free-living conditions. The aim of this study was to compare daily sedentary time estimates between a thigh-worn accelerometer, which measured sitting and lying postures, and a wrist-worn accelerometer, which measured low levels of movement. Methods: The study population consisted of 259 participants (M age = 62.8 years, SD = 0.9) from the Finnish Retirement and Aging Study (FIREA). Participants wore an Axivity AX3 accelerometer on their mid-thigh and an Actigraph wActiSleep-BT accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist simultaneously for a minimum of 4 days in free-living conditions. Two definitions to estimate daily sedentary time were used for data from the wrist-worn accelerometer: 1) the count cutpoint, ≤1853 counts per minute; and 2) the Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO) cutpoint, <30 mg. Results: Compared to the thigh-worn accelerometer, daily sedentary time estimate was 63 min (95% confidence interval [CI] = −53 to −73) lower by the count cutpoint and 50 min (95% CI = 34 to 67) lower by the ENMO cutpoint. The limits of agreement in daily sedentary time estimates between the thigh- and cutpoint methods for wrist-worn accelerometers were wide (the count cutpoint: −117 to 243, the ENMO cutpoint: −212 to 313 min). Conclusions: Currently established cutpoint-based methods to estimate sedentary time from wrist-worn accelerometers result in underestimation of daily sedentary time compared to posture-based estimates of thigh-worn accelerometers. Thus, sedentary time estimates obtained from wrist-worn accelerometers using currently available cutpoint-based methods should be interpreted with caution and future work is needed to improve their accuracy.
Andreas M. Kasper, S. Andy Sparks, Matthew Hooks, Matthew Skeer, Benjamin Webb, Houman Nia, James P. Morton and Graeme L. Close
Rugby is characterized by frequent high-intensity collisions, resulting in muscle soreness. Players consequently seek strategies to reduce soreness and accelerate recovery, with an emerging method being cannabidiol (CBD), despite anti-doping risks. The prevalence and rationale for CBD use in rugby has not been explored; therefore, we recruited professional male players to complete a survey on CBD. Goodness of fit chi-square (χ2) was used to assess CBD use between codes and player position. Effects of age on use were determined using χ2 tests of independence. Twenty-five teams provided 517 player responses. While the majority of players had never used CBD (p < .001, V = 0.24), 26% had either used it (18%) or were still using it (8%). Significantly more CBD use was observed in rugby union compared with rugby league (p = .004, V = 0.13), but player position was not a factor (p = .760, V = 0.013). CBD use increased with players’ age (p < .001, V = 0.28), with mean use reaching 41% in the players aged 28 years and older category (p < .0001). The players using CBD primarily used the Internet (73%) or another teammate (61%) to obtain information, with only 16% consulting a nutritionist. The main reasons for CBD use were improving recovery/pain (80%) and sleep (78%), with 68% of players reporting a perceived benefit. These data highlight the need for immediate education on the risks of CBD, as well as the need to explore the claims regarding pain and sleep.