4 research outputs found

    The forgotten kids: Experiences of potential student-athletes at a postsecondary football preparatory school

    Get PDF
    The first preparatory institution was founded in 1635 to prepare elite men for public service, a role in the church, or admission to Harvard (Boyer, 1983). Nearly 400 years later, the objective of such institutions is no longer Harvard, but often an avenue for potential student-athletes (PSAs) to participate in collegiate sport (Thamel, 2007). The NCAA does not define nor regulate postgraduate preparatory institutions; however, Curran (2014) describes a preparatory institution (commonly referred to as prep schools) as a postgraduate institute that provides PSAs another year at a secondary institution prior to making the transition to college. Framed by Mincer’s (1958) model of Basic Human Capital, the purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of those attending or associated with one specific preparatory institution (X Academy). The first research question which explores prospective student-athletes choices to attend a preparatory institution revealed three final themes: (1) eligibility concerns, (2) athletic exposure and development, and (3) academic improvement. The second research question explores the experiences of those attending a preparatory institution also revealed three final themes: (1) focus and preparation, (2) melting pot, and (3) survival. &nbsp

    Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

    No full text
    Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
    corecore