A biomechanical evaluation of the combined elevation test

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Physical Therapy in Sport and the definitive published version us available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.11.001.Objectives: To biomechanically evaluate the relationships between the outcome of the Combined Elevation Test, its component joint motions, and thoracic spine angles. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Laboratory. Participants: 18 elite swimmers and triathletes (11 males and 7 females). Main outcome measures: Combined Elevation Test outcome in forehead and chin positions. Individual joint contributions to test outcome. Results: No sex differences were found in test components, or between head positions. Test outcome was greater in the forehead position than the chin position (34.3 cm vs 30.2 cm; p<0.001). The variables most strongly associated with test outcome were glenohumeral joint flexion (r = 0.86 – 0.97; p<0.001), and shoulder retraction (r = 0.75 - 0.82; p<0.001). Total thoracic spine angle related strongly to test outcome in females (r = -0.77 – -0.88; p<0.05), but not in males (r = -0.17 – -0.24; p>0.05). Conclusions: The Combined Elevation Test is an effective screening tool to measure upper limb mobility into shoulder flexion and scapula retraction in both sexes, and thoracic extension in women. It is recommended that the test be performed in the forehead position. If a subject performs poorly on the test, follow up assessments are required to identify the impairment location

The Olympic Games and raising sports participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect

Research questions: Can a demonstration effect, whereby people are inspired by elite sport, sports people and events to actively participate themselves, be harnessed from an Olympic Games to influence sport participation? Did London 2012 sport participation legacy policy draw on evidence about a demonstration effect, and was a legacy delivered? Research methods: A worldwide systematic review of English language evidence returned 1,778 sources iteratively reduced by the author panel, on advice from an international review panel, to 21 included sources that were quality appraised and synthesised narratively. The evidence was used to examine the influence of a demonstration effect on sport participation engagement and to interrogate sport participation legacy policy for London 2012. Results and findings: There is no evidence for an inherent demonstration effect, but a potential demonstration effect, properly leveraged, may deliver increases in sport participation frequency and re-engage lapsed participants. Despite setting out to use London 2012 to raise sport participation, successive UK governments’ policy failures to harness the potential influence of a demonstration effect on demand resulted in failure to deliver increased participation. Implications: If the primary justification for hosting an Olympic Games is the potential impact on sport participation, the Games are a bad investment. However, the Games can have specific impacts on sport participation frequency and re-engagement, and if these are desirable for host societies, are properly leveraged by hosts, and are one among a number of reasons for hosting the Games, then the Games may be a justifiable investment in sport participation terms