Is Coronavirus Infection Associated With Musculoskeletal Health Complaints? Results From a Comprehensive Case-Control Study

Objective: This case-control study investigated the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and musculoskeletal health complaints (MHC). The specific aims of the study were (1) to compare the 1-month prevalence of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients and participants who never tested positive for COVID-19 matched by the former group’s age and gender; (2) to identify the predictors of MHC among all participants, and (3) define the factors independently associated with MHC in post-acute COVID-19 patients. Methods and Analysis: The study was conducted in Bangladesh from February 24 to April 7, 2022. The face-to-face interview was taken using a paper-based semi-structured questionnaire. MHC was measured using the musculoskeletal subscale of subjective health complaints produced by Eriksen et al. Descriptive analysis was conducted to compute MHC prevalence and compare them across groups. Multiple logistic analyses were employed to identify MHC predictors for the participants. Results: The prevalence of MHC was 38.7%. Adjusted analysis suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with MHC (AOR = 3.248,95% CI = 2.307-4.571). Furthermore, unemployment (AOR = 4.156, 95% CI = 1.308-13.208), moderate illness (AOR = 2.947,95% CI = 1.216-7.144), treatment in hospitals’ general word (AOR = 4.388,95% CI = 1.878-10.254) and health complaints after COVID-19 (AOR = 4.796,95% CI = 2.196-10.472) were found to be the predictors of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Our study found a robust association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and MHC and recommends that healthcare authorities be prepared to deal with the high burden of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients

Fitness trainers’ educational qualification and experience and its association with their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain: A cross-sectional study

This is a cross-sectional study that examined the association between fitness trainers’ educational qualifications and experience, and the risk of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain. The study included 1177 trainees (aged 15–60 years) from 74 fitness centers in Bangladesh. Data were collected by using the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire, including potential confounders such as demographic factors (e.g., age, occupation), and training-related factors (e.g., workout knowledge, overweight lifting). Multiple logistic regression was performed for a binary outcome (pain—yes or no), and a generalized linear model was fitted for the ordinal outcome (pain—sites of the body). The trainers’ lower experience (no or ≤1 year) was associated with higher odds of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.18–5.44) compared to trainers with >5 years of experience; however, no association was found between the trainers’ education and the risk of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain, after controlling for potential confounders. Similarly, the trainees trained by trainers with lower experience had more than two-time the risk of having pain in different sites (IRR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.50–2.79). The trainers’ experience may play a pivotal role in the trainees’ musculoskeletal pain. Further study is warranted in this regard

Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents (vol 52, pg 933, 2021)

Washif JA, Farooq A, Krug I, et al. Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents (vol 52, pg 933, 2021). Sports Medicine . 2022;52:933-948.Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness)

Training during the COVID-19 lockdown : knowledge, beliefs, and practices of 12,526 athletes from 142 countries and six continents

OBJECTIVE Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). RESULTS Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. CONCLUSIONS COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).A specific funding was provided by the National Sports Institute of Malaysia for this study.The National Sports Institute of Malaysia.https://www.springer.com/journal/40279am2023Sports Medicin