METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed athletes without disabilities using online questionnaires (35 languages) from May to July 2020. Questions included aspects of alternative routines, training monitoring, recovery, sleep patterns, injury occurrence/prevention based on structured answers, and an open-ended question on lockdown training experiences.
RESULTS: Of the 11,762 athletes from 142 countries, 63% were male, including at World-Class, International, National, State and Recreational levels. During lockdown, 25% athletes used innovative or modern ways to maintain or improve fitness e.g., virtual reality and tracking devices (favoring World-Class level, 30%). Many athletes, regardless of gender (43%) watched video competitions to improve/maintain their mental skills and performance [World-Class (47%) and International (51%)]. Contact frequency between athletes and their coaches was mainly at least once a week (36%), more among higher-level (World-Class/International) than lower-level athletes (27 vs. 16%). Higher-level athletes (≥ 54%) monitored training load and were assisted by their coaches (21%). During lockdown, stretching (67%) was considered one of the primary means of recovery, especially for higher-level athletes (> 70%). Compared to pre-lockdown, about two-thirds of athletes reported "normal" or "improved" sleep quality and quantity, suggesting a low sleep quality pre-lockdown. On average, 40% utilized injury prevention exercises (at least) once a week [World-Class (51%) and International (39%)]. Most injury occurrences during lockdown involved the knee (18%), ankle (16%), and back (9%). Four key themes emerged regarding lockdown experiences: remote training adaptation (e.g., shifting training focus), training creativity (e.g., using household items), performance enhancement opportunities (e.g., refocusing neglected aspects), and mental and motivation challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Both male and female athletes, particularly those of higher levels, displayed some adaptalibity during the COVID-19 lockdown, employing innovative approaches and technology for training. Many athletes implemented load monitoring, recovery, and attentive of injury prevention, while optimizing their sleep quality and quantity. Athletes demonstrated their abilities to navigate challenges, and utilized different coping strategies in response to the lockdown's constraints.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, 3,380 college students (60% females; age = 22.7 ± 5.4) from four continents (Africa: 32%; America: 5%; Asia: 46%; and Europe: 15%; others: 2%) completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Insomnia Severity Index (ISI); Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS); the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS); the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ); and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-Brief).
RESULTS: We showed that sleep quality, insomnia, and depression had direct negative effects on the physical domain of QOL (β = -0.22, -0.19, -0.31, respectively, p
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to conduct a systematic published data review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing RM with IO follow-up.
METHODS: Electronic databases and reference lists were searched for RCTs reporting clinical outcomes in ICD patients who did or did not undergo RM. Data were extracted from 9 RCTs, including 6,469 patients, 3,496 of whom were randomized to RM and 2,973 to IO follow-up.
RESULTS: In the RCT setting, RM demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable with office follow-up in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; p = 0.285), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.66; p = 0.103), and hospitalization (OR: 0.83; p = 0.196). However, a reduction in all-cause mortality was noted in the 3 trials using home monitoring (OR: 0.65; p = 0.021) with daily verification of transmission. Although the odds of receiving any ICD shock were similar in RM and IO patients (OR: 1.05; p = 0.86), the odds of inappropriate shock were reduced in RM patients (OR: 0.55; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates that RM and IO follow-up showed comparable overall outcomes related to patient safety and survival, with a potential survival benefit in RCTs using daily transmission verification. RM benefits include more rapid clinical event detection and a reduction in inappropriate shocks.