The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's "no presumption of advantage" principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of "meaningful competition" is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

Which behaviour change techniques are associated with interventions that increase physical activity in pre-school children? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity (PA) is a significant risk factor that contributes to several health problems and there is a need to improve our understanding of how to increase PA, particularly among young children. This review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022328841) investigated the relationship between behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and interventions that increased PA among pre-school children aged < 6 years old. METHODS: Systematic searches of six databases were undertaken from inception to July 2022, updated in December 2022, to locate studies that evaluated interventions and reported a positive change in PA levels in children aged < 6 years old. RESULTS: A total of 5,304 studies were screened, and 28 studies involving 10,605 subjects aged 2.5 to 5.9 years met the eligibility criteria. Each eligible study (n = 28) was independently appraised by two researchers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The BCT Taxonomy v1 and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guided the extraction and analysis of data, and this process led to the identification of 27 BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially promising BCTs for increasing PA among young children included 'shaping knowledge,' 'antecedents,' 'goals and planning,' and 'comparison of behaviour.' Future PA interventions that target young children should consider integrating these promising BCTs into their programmes. However, such consideration needs to be tempered by the fact that most of the reviewed studies were deemed to have a high or unclear risk of bias and/or were limited with respect to the populations that they targeted. Further research using rigorous methodologies is required to establish a higher standard that addresses the needs of young children who are expected to have insufficient levels of physical activity.

Clinical patterns, recovery time and prolonged impact of COVID-19 illness in international athletes: the UK experience.

OBJECTIVES: To report COVID-19 illness pattern, symptom duration and time loss in UK elite athletes. METHODS: Observational, clinical and database review of athletes with symptomatic COVID-19 illness managed within the UK Sports Institutes. Athletes were classified as confirmed (positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antibody tests) or probable (consistent clinical features) COVID-19. Clinical presentation was characterised by the predominant symptom focus (eg, upper or lower respiratory illness). Time loss was defined as days unavailable for full sport participation and comparison was made with a 2016-2019 respiratory illness dataset from the same surveillance system. RESULTS: Between 24 February 2020 and 18 January 2021, 147 athletes (25 Paralympic (17%)) with mean (SD) age 24.7 (5.2) years, 37% female, were diagnosed with COVID-19 (76 probable, 71 confirmed). Fatigue was the most prevalent symptom (57%), followed by dry cough (50%) and headache (46%). The median (IQR) symptom duration was 10 (6-17) days but 14% reported symptoms >28 days. Median time loss was 18 (12-30) days, with 27% not fully available >28 days from initial date of infection. This was greater than our historical non-COVID respiratory illness comparator; 6 days, 0-7 days (p<0.001) and 4% unavailable at 28 days. A lower respiratory phenotype (ie, including dyspnoea±chest pain±cough±fever) was present in 18% and associated with a higher relative risk of prolonged symptoms risk ratio 3.0 (95% CI: 1.4 to 6.5) and time loss 2.1 (95% CI: 1.2 to 3.5). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, COVID-19 largely resulted in a mild, self-limiting illness. The presence of lower respiratory tract features was associated with prolonged illness and a delayed return to sport.

Association between the level of partial foot amputation and gait: a scoping review with implications for the minimum impairment criteria for wheelchair tennis.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review examines how different levels and types of partial foot amputation affect gait and explores how these findings may affect the minimal impairment criteria for wheelchair tennis. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus) were systematically searched in February 2021 for terms related to partial foot amputation and ambulation. The search was updated in February 2022. All study designs investigating gait-related outcomes in individuals with partial foot amputation were included and independently screened by two reviewers based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-nine publications with data from 252 participants with partial foot amputation in 25 studies were analysed. Toe amputations were associated with minor gait abnormalities, and great toe amputations caused loss of push-off in a forward and lateral direction. Metatarsophalangeal amputations were associated with loss of stability and decreased gait speed. Ray amputations were associated with decreased gait speed and reduced lower extremity range of motion. Transmetatarsal amputations and more proximal amputations were associated with abnormal gait, substantial loss of power generation across the ankle and impaired mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Partial foot amputation was associated with various gait changes, depending on the type of amputation. Different levels and types of foot amputation are likely to affect tennis performance. We recommend including first ray, transmetatarsal, Chopart and Lisfranc amputations in the minimum impairment criteria, excluding toe amputations (digits two to five), and we are unsure whether to include or exclude great toe, ray (two to five) and metatarsophalangeal amputations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this scoping review was previously registered at the Open Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/8gh9y) and published.

Sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data. RESULTS: The search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs' current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA. METHODS: All published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies. RESULTS: Included were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: IA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection. PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020181928 .

Sport Preparticipation Screening for Asymptomatic Atlantoaxial Instability in Patients With Down Syndrome.

Down syndrome (DS) is a clinical syndrome comprising typical facial features and various physical and intellectual disabilities due to extra genetic material on chromosome 21, with one in every 1000 babies born in the United Kingdom affected. Patients with Down syndrome are at risk of atlantoaxial instability (AAI). Although AAI can occur in other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, this position statement deals specifically with patients with DS and asymptomatic AAI. Atlantoaxial instability, also referred to as atlantoaxial subluxation, is defined as increased movement between the first (atlas) and second (axial) cervical vertebra joint articulation, the atlantoaxial joint. Atlantoaxial instability is reported to occur in 6.8% to 27% of the DS population, although this varies depending on the age of the patients whom you are screening. Less than 1% to 2% of these patients are then thought to later develop symptomatic AAI, although the natural history and progression of AAI is not well understood. The risks associated with AAI are neurological injury from excessive movement of the cervical vertebra impinging on and then damaging the spinal cord, although the risk of this during sporting activities is extremely rare. Clearly, physical activity and sports participation for patients with DS has many biological, psychological, and social benefits, and the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine (FSEM), United Kingdom, wishes to promote safe physical activity and sport for all. The FSEM, United Kingdom, has therefore produced a statement regarding sport preparticipation screening for asymptomatic AAI in patients with DS.

Stroke Prevention Rehabilitation Intervention Trial of Exercise (SPRITE) - a randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The value of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke is untested despite these conditions sharing similar pathology and risk factors to coronary heart disease. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a trial of an adapted home-based CR programme, 'The Healthy Brain Rehabilitation Manual', for patients following a TIA/minor stroke, participants' views on the intervention and, to identify the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used. METHODS: Clinicians were asked to identify patients attending the Ulster Hospital, Belfast within 4 weeks of a first TIA or minor stroke. Those who agreed to participate underwent assessments of physical fitness, cardiovascular risk, quality of life and mental health, before random allocation to: Group (1) standard/usual care; (2) rehabilitation manual or (3) manual plus pedometer. All participants received telephone support at 1 and 4 weeks, reassessment at 6 weeks and an invitation to a focus group exploring views regarding the study. Two trained review authors independently assessed the manual to identify the BCTs used. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were invited to participate, with 15 (10 men, 5 women; 9 TIA, 6 minor stroke; mean age 69 years) consenting and completing the study. Mean time to enrolment from the TIA/stroke was 20.5 days. Participants completed all assessment measures except VO2max testing, which all declined. The manual and telephone contact were viewed positively, as credible sources of advice. Pedometers were valued highly, particularly for goal-setting. Overall, 36 individual BCTs were used, the commonest being centred around setting goals and planning as well as social support. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and retention rates suggest that a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel home-based CR programme, implemented within 4 weeks of a first TIA/minor stroke is feasible. The commonest BCTs used within the manual revolve around goals, planning and social support, in keeping with UK national guidelines. The findings from this feasibility work have been used to further refine the next stage of the intervention's development, a pilot study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02712385 . This study was registered prospectively on 18/03/2016.

What to do after cardiac rehabilitation programs: the role of the general practitioner in cardiovascular prevention.

This paper will review the current role of general practitioners (GPs) in providing cardiovascular prevention for patients after attendance at a cardiac rehabilitation program. Long-term implementation of preventive strategies is needed for continued impact on reducing risk of cardiovascular events and GPs have a major role in providing ongoing continuing medical care. Awareness of patients' social, cultural and physical circumstances allows the GP to identify individuals' needs for support in engaging in secondary prevention: relevant brief interventions can promote behaviour change in physical activity, diet and smoking habits, as well as promoting mental health and adherence to optimal medical therapy. Collaborative multidisciplinary working with community and hospital services provides best opportunities for timely referral to specialist expertise to maximise patients' well-being.

Physical activity assessment in practice: a mixed methods study of GPPAQ use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use. METHODS: Four general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas, were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere, Vision). Participants' (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via questionnaires and focus groups. RESULTS: Of 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive. All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires.End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8) and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from PA promotion. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.