No abstract

BackgroundArguably the uptake and usability of the physical activity (PA) guidelines for older adults has not been effective with only 12% of this population meeting the minimum guidelines to maintain health. Health promoters must consider innovative ways to increase PA adoption and long-term sustainability. Physical literacy (PL) is emerging as a promising strategy to increase lifelong PA participation in younger age-groups, yet there is relatively little evidence of PL being used to support older adults in achieving the PA guidelines.MethodsAn iterative and mixed-methods consensus development process was utilized over a series of six informed processes and meetings to develop a model of physical literacy for adults aged 65 years and older.ResultsA multi-disciplinary collaborative working group (n = 9) from diverse practice settings across Canada, and representative and reflective of the full range of key elements of PL, was assembled. Three consensus meetings and two Delphi surveys, using an international cohort of 65 expert researchers, practitioners, non-government organizations and older adults, was conducted. 45% responded on the first round and consensus was achieved; however, we elected to run a second survey to support our results. With 79% response rate, there was consensus to support the new PL model for older adults.ConclusionOlder adults are a unique group who have yet to be exposed to PL as a means to promote long-term PA participation. This new PL model uses an ecological approach to integrate PL into the lifestyles of most older adults. Understanding the interactions between components and elements that facilitate PL will ultimately provide a new and effective tool to target PA promotion and adherence for all older Canadians.

Background: Physical literacy is essential to physical activity across the lifespan. While there is an emerging body of research on physical literacy in school-aged children, the preschool years have largely been ignored. We tested the psychometric properties of the new tool, the Preschool Physical Literacy Assessment Tool (Pre-PLAy) designed to address this gap.Methods: We recruted 78 children (aged 19–49 months) across 5 childcare centers in Hamilton, Ontario. Two Early Childhood Educators (ECE) completed the Pre-PLAy for each child at two points in time to assess inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability. We assessed the agreement between the Pre-PLAy tool with gross motor skills and the ability of the PPLAy to predict physical activity.Results: Results indicated Pre-PLAy is related to gross motor skills and predictive of physical activity for females, but not males. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was at least adequate for all but the coordinated movements items and scale for females, but ECEs showed poor agreement for males.Conclusions: These results suggest initial support for the Pre-PLAy tool as a measure of physical literacy during the early years. However, some modification to the items and training are required to address the gender-specific effects found in this sample.

Physical literacy is becoming increasingly popular in sport, recreation, physical education and physical activity settings and programming. We developed an environmental assessment tool to evaluate the extent child and youth activity programs implement physical literacy across four domains: environment, programming, leaders and staff, and values and goals. The Physical Literacy Environmental Assessment (PLEA) tool was developed in 3 phases. First, the PLEA tool was created, content validity established, and physical literacy leaders were consulted. In the second phase, the PLEA tool was completed and tested by 83 child and youth programs and it was validated with individual physical literacy assessments completed on children in programs that scored in the top 10% and bottom 10% on the PLEA tool. Third, a National consultation was conducted, and program leaders provided feedback on the PLEA tool. In Phase 1, the PLEA tool was modified and shortened from 41 to 29 indicators, based on feedback from physical literacy content leaders. In Phase 2, participants in programs that scored in the top 10% had significantly higher scores on the upper body object control domain of PLAYfun (p = 0.018), and significantly higher PLAYself scores (p = 0.04) than participants in programs that scored in the bottom 10%. In Phase 3, over 80% of program leaders identified the PLEA tool was useful, and relevant to their areas of practice. The completed PLEA tool is a 20-item environmental assessment tool to evaluate to what degree child and youth programming implement physical literacy across four domains: environment, programming, leaders and staff, and values and goals. The application and validity of the PLEA tool beyond child and youth physical education, sport, dance and recreation sectors, such as in early years programs, should be investigated.

Background:In situ simulation shows promise as an effective training tool for trauma; however, its disruptive nature is a major downside. Although the benefits of in situ simulation in trauma have been described, the potential perceived harms of running an unscheduled simulation using working staff are unknown. The aim of this study is to assess trauma team members' perceptions regarding the value of in situ simulation relative to its perceived impact on patient care. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal survey study including all members of the multidisciplinary trauma team at the Halifax Infirmary, a level 1 trauma centre in Nova Scotia. Following an in situ simulation, participants were given a 10-question survey with answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 61 surveys were collected. Survey respondents were grouped into allied health (nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists; 44%), learners (residents and medical students; 44%) and other (staff physicians, those who did not specify their role; 12%). Respondents felt that participating in the in situ simulation delayed (28%) or compromised patient care (5%) infrequently. No respondents felt that patients were harmed. In situ simulation was felt to identify important safety issues (70%), improve trauma team communication (89%) and improve trauma patient care (89%). The in situ simulation was considered enjoyable (92%) and was identified as a good educational experience (95%). It was felt by participants that simulations should continue to be done in situ in the trauma bay rather than in a sim laboratory (54%). Conclusion:The trauma in situ simulation program at the Halifax Infirmary is not felt to cause delays or compromise patient care. The program is considered to be a good learning opportunity that identifies safety issues and improves patient care. Epidemiology of submersion injuries inCanadian children and adolescents: 1990-2018.