Advancing the preparticipation physical evaluation (PPE): an ACSM and FIMS joint consensus statement.

While the preparticipation physical evaluation (PPE) is widely accepted, its usage and content are not standardized. Implementation is affected by cost, access, level of participation, participant age/sex, and local/regional/national mandate. PPE screening costs are generally borne by the athlete, family, or club. Screening involves generally agreed-upon questions based on expert opinion and tested over decades of use. No large-scale prospective controlled tracking programs have examined PPE outcomes. While the panel did not reach consensus on electrocardiogram screening as a routine part of PPE, all agreed that a history and physical exam focusing on cardiac risk is essential, and an ECG should be used where risk is increased. The many areas of consensus should help the American College of Sports Medicine and the Fédération Internationale du Médicine du Sport in developing a universally accepted PPE. An electronic PPE, using human-centered design, would be comprehensive, would provide a database given that PPE is mandatory in many locations, would simplify PPE administration, would allow remote access to clinical data, and would provide the much-needed data for prospective studies in this area.

Importance of sports during youth and exercise barriers in 20- to 29-year-old male nonathletes differently motivated for regular physical activities.

The number of sedentary young adults has dramatically increased in past decades, and sedentary lifestyles are adopted at an increasingly earlier age. Little is known about barriers or predictors to (re)initiate regular physical activity in this group. The purpose of the study is to (a) identify subgroups in nonathletes differing in their amenability to physical exercise, (b) to analyze them for differences in barriers and intention to exercise, and (c) compare importance of sports during youth in nonathletes to trained peers. Using a health and fitness questionnaire 589 nonathletes were queried in the cross-sectional survey and compared with 270 trained peers. Athletic abstainers (A), lower (L), and higher (H) motivated nonathletes were separated based on previous engagement in sports. Of the nonathletes, 54.7% reported only 1 barrier to exercise. Although this feature was most prominent in H (71.5%), the other groups showed significantly more barriers and a broader distribution. Similar characteristics but minor differences were observed for perceived importance of sports during youth. The most significant differences between athletes and nonathletes emerged enquiring the attitude and activity of the parents. The majority of nonathletes (72.8%) indicate their intention to exercise in the future. Their intention differed significantly in H (88.1%), L (76.1%), and A (59.1%). However, there are good reasons to doubt that most of those intending nonathletes will actually become physically active. Even in the analyzed narrow age range of men different motivated groups of nonathletes were found. Because of the differences in receptiveness and approachability health promotion policies may not only consider the often recommended tailored interventions but also carefully designed incentive programs.