The association of golf participation with health and wellbeing:a comparative study

Golf participation is comprised of activities likely to be beneficial to a golfer’s health and wellbeing, including regular walking and social interactions. This study aimed to use a questionnaire to compare physical activity, social trust and personal wellbeing of golfers with National statistics. Furthermore, the study aimed to measure the association between golfers’ physical activity levels and self-efficacy for both golf and general exercise participation. Results demonstrated that golfers reported significantly different physical activity levels in comparison to the population of England. Golfers scored significantly higher on social trust and personal wellbeing compared to the population of the UK and England respectively. Golf and exercise self-efficacy were significantly associated with physical activity. The findings of the study demonstrate that, despite golfers having relatively lower levels of physical activity, golf participation is associated with psychological wellbeing. Coaches, golfers and others promoting golf participation may benefit from the results of this study due to an increased awareness of the possible benefits of golf participation

Moving at scale: Promising practice and practical guidance on evaluation of physical activity programmes in the UK

Paper presented at the 7th International Society for Physical Activity and Health Congress, 15th-17th October 2018, London, England.Purpose: To develop effective physical activity (PA) frameworks policy makers require an understanding of which interventions increase PA at population level. This investigation identified PA interventions in the UK; considered key challenges in evaluating interventions; and provided guidance to inform and support effective evaluation. It followed from a 2014 investigation that identified and benchmarked PA interventions in England. Methods: An open call for examples of good and promising practice was made to organisations, groups, and individuals delivering PA interventions in the UK. Participants completed a questionnaire based upon elements of the Standard Evaluation Framework for Physical Activity Programmes. Nesta Standards of Evidence were interpreted and used to score projects and programmes based on an assessment of the evaluation method used. Results: A total of 302 completed submissions were assessed; 17 interventions used a control or comparison group; 12 were evaluated by an external evaluator; 55% of interventions collected pre/post measures; 22% engaged between 1,000 and 5,000 participants with 8% including >25,000 participants; 27% had been on-going for 2-5 years; 55% were delivered in a local authority leisure facility; 40% received funding from local authorities and 32% from private funders. Conclusions: The quality of monitoring, data collection, and evaluation processes embedded into programme delivery has improved since the 2014 review, which is encouraging. Non-inclusion of control or comparison groups (although not always appropriate) remains a barrier in demonstrating the causal impact of programmes. Few studies reported independent evaluation. Inadequate or incomplete submissions also impacted assessment.Published versio

Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Background Increasingly, pragmatic randomised controlled trials are being used to evaluate surgical interventions, although they present particular difficulties in regards to recruitment and retention. Methods Procedures and processes related to implementation of a multi-centre pragmatic surgical randomised controlled trial are discussed. In this surgical trial, forecasting of consent rates based on similar trials and micro-costing of study activities with research partners were undertaken and a video was produced targeting recruiting staff with the aim of aiding recruitment. The baseline assessments were reviewed to ensure the timing did not impact on the outcome. Attrition due to procedure waiting time was monitored and data were triangulated for the primary outcome to ensure adequate follow-up data. Results Forecasting and costing ensured that the recruitment window was of adequate length and adequate resource was available for study procedures at multiple clinics in each hospital. Recruiting staff found the recruitment video useful. The comparison of patient-reported data collected prior to randomisation and prior to treatment provided confidence in the baseline data. Knowledge of participant dropout due to delays in treatment meant we were able to increase the recruitment target in a timely fashion, and along with the triangulation of data sources, this ensured adequate follow-up of randomised participants. Conclusions This paper provides a range of evidence-based and experience-based approaches which, collectively, resulted in meeting our study objectives and from which lessons may be transferable

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care