Analyse des interactions agressives dans le football Beninois : Aspects spatiaux et temporels

La présente étude procède d'une analyse des interactions agressives dans le football béninois dans ses aspects spatiaux et temporels. Elle concerne  12 équipes évoluant dans le championnat de football de première division nationale lors de 24 rencontres jouées à domicile et sur terrain adverse.  Sur la base de la classification de Pfister, 2465 interactions agressives ont été enregistrées dont 59,36% lors des rencontres jouées à domicile contre  40,64% sur terrain adverse. Aussi bien à domicile qu'à l'extérieur, les résultats révèlent que c'est la zone médiane (milieu de terrain) qui enregistre le  plus d'interactions agressives (46,70%) que celle de l'attaque (33,51%) qui est supposée zone sensible d'interactions agressives. En outre, ces  interactions surviennent pour la majorité (60,69%) dans la 2ème mi-temps des rencontres, ce qui rejoint les résultats des travaux réalisés par Pfister,  en ce qui concerne le comportement des footballeurs français de première division en matière d'interactions agressives. Les données enregistrées  montrent qu'il n'existe pas de différence significative dans les comportements agressifs entre les footballeurs français et béninois.   The current study  proceeds from an analysis of aggressive interactions in the Beninese football on its space and temporal aspects. It concerns 12 teams  evolving in the soccer first division championship during 24 games played at home and on the adverse field. On the basis of Pfister's (1985)  classification, 2465 aggressive interaction have been recorded, of which 59.36% during the games played at home versus 40.64% on the adverse  field. The results show that, as well at home as outside, the middle of the field is the area where more aggressive interactions (46.70%) are recorded  than that of the attack (33.55%) which is supposed to be the sensitive area of aggressive interactions. Moreover, the greatest part of those  interactions (60.69%) occurs in the second half-time of matches, which goes back to the results of the researches carried out by Pfister (1986) on  aggressive interactions as far as the behavior of the French football players of the first division is concerned. These relevant data show that it does  not exist any significant difference on the aggressive behaviors between the French and the Beninese football players.&nbsp

Analyse des interactions agressives dans le football Beninois : Aspects spatiaux et temporels

La présente étude procède d'une analyse des interactions agressives dans le football béninois dans ses aspects spatiaux et temporels. Elle concerne  12 équipes évoluant dans le championnat de football de première division nationale lors de 24 rencontres jouées à domicile et sur terrain adverse.  Sur la base de la classification de Pfister, 2465 interactions agressives ont été enregistrées dont 59,36% lors des rencontres jouées à domicile contre  40,64% sur terrain adverse. Aussi bien à domicile qu'à l'extérieur, les résultats révèlent que c'est la zone médiane (milieu de terrain) qui enregistre le  plus d'interactions agressives (46,70%) que celle de l'attaque (33,51%) qui est supposée zone sensible d'interactions agressives. En outre, ces  interactions surviennent pour la majorité (60,69%) dans la 2ème mi-temps des rencontres, ce qui rejoint les résultats des travaux réalisés par Pfister,  en ce qui concerne le comportement des footballeurs français de première division en matière d'interactions agressives. Les données enregistrées  montrent qu'il n'existe pas de différence significative dans les comportements agressifs entre les footballeurs français et béninois. The current study proceeds from an analysis of aggressive interactions in the Beninese football on its space and temporal aspects. It concerns 12  teams evolving in the soccer first division championship during 24 games played at home and on the adverse field. On the basis of Pfister's (1985)  classification, 2465 aggressive interaction have been recorded, of which 59.36% during the games played at home versus 40.64% on the adverse  field. The results show that, as well at home as outside, the middle of the field is the area where more aggressive interactions (46.70%) are recorded  than that of the attack (33.55%) which is supposed to be the sensitive area of aggressive interactions. Moreover, the greatest part of those  interactions (60.69%) occurs in the second half-time of matches, which goes back to the results of the researches carried out by Pfister (1986) on  aggressive interactions as far as the behavior of the French football players of the first division is concerned. These relevant data show that it does  not exist any significant difference on the aggressive behaviors between the French and the Beninese football players.&nbsp

Systematic review to identify proxy indicators to quantify the impact of eHealth tools on maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries including Delphi consensus

Objective To identify interventions that could serve as reliable proxy indicators to measure eHealth impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Design Systematic review and Delphi study. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane from January 1990 to May 2016 for studies and reviews that evaluated interventions aimed at improving maternal/neonatal health and reducing mortality. Interventions that are not low-income and middle-income context appropriate and that cannot currently be diagnosed, managed or impacted by eHealth (eg, via telemedicine distance diagnostic or e-learning) were excluded. We used the Cochrane risk of bias, Risk Of Bias In Non- randomised Studies - of Interventions and ROBIS tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-step modified Delphi method was added to identify additional proxy indicators and prioritise the results, involving a panel of 13 experts from different regions, representing obstetricians and neonatologists. Results We included 44 studies and reviews, identifying 40 potential proxy indicators with a positive impact on maternal/neonatal outcomes. The Delphi experts completed and prioritised these, resulting in a list of 77 potential proxy indicators. Conclusions The proxy indicators propose relevant outcome measures to evaluate if eHealth tools directly affect maternal/neonatal outcomes. Some proxy indicators require mapping to the local context, practices and available resources. The local mapping facilitates the utilisation of the proxy indicators in various contexts while allowing the systematic collection of data from different projects and programmes. Based on the mapping, the same proxy indicator can be used for different contexts, allowing it to measure what is locally and temporally relevant, making the proxy indicator sustainable. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015027351