No abstract

BackgroundTo assess the relationship between sport and osteoarthritis (OA), and specifically to determine whether previous participation, in terms of level (elite or non-elite), type of sport, intensity or previous injury, was associated with OA.MethodsThis systematic review was developed using PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched (to May 2016). Narrative review and meta-analysis (with risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs) approaches were undertaken where appropriate. Study quality was assessed using GRADE.Results46 studies were included. Narratively, 31 studies reported an increased risk of OA, with 19 demonstrating an increased risk in elite athletes. There was an increased risk after sports exposure (irrespective of type; RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.64; 21 studies). It remained uncertain whether there was a difference in risk of OA between elite and non-elite athletes (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.84 to 2.22; 17 studies). The risk was higher in soccer (RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.77; 15 studies) but lower in runners (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.41; 12 studies). 9 studies showed an association with the intensity of sport undertaken and OA. 5 studies demonstrated a higher prevalence of OA following meniscectomies and anterior cruciate ligament tears. Overall, the evidence was of GRADE ‘very low’ quality.ConclusionsThere was very low-quality evidence to support an increased relationship between sports participation and OA in elite participants. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk between elite and non-elite participants with further prospective studies needed to evaluate this. Pooled findings suggested that significant injuries were associated with OA in soccer players.

BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown.AimTo examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity.Design and settingA mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results.MethodCINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model.ResultsAfter screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%–100% and 0.6%–100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers — including a lack of time and training/guidelines — remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients’ receptivity to advice.ConclusionPA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals’ confidence in their delivery.

The aims of this study were to explore: (a) stressors (including intensity of the feelings that the appraisal of each stressor generated and control of the stressor) and coping strategies on training and competition days; (b) the relationship between stressor intensity and stressor control; (c) the relationship between stressor intensity and stressor control with coping effectiveness; and (d) the relationship between coping effectiveness and coping automaticity. Participants were 10 elite Caucasian cross-country athletes who maintained a stressor and coping diary for 6 weeks. Results revealed that the runners experienced diverse stressors and used different coping strategies on training and competition days. Stressors were significantly more intense on competition days. Additionally, there was a significant negative correlation between stressor intensity and stressor control, and a negative correlation between stressor intensity and coping effectiveness. These results support the notion that stressors and coping are situation-specific variables. Applied practitioners could thus devise situation-specific coping interventions to maximize coping effectiveness.