9 research outputs found

    An Examination of Sport Fans’ Perceptions of the Impact of the Legalization of Sport Wagering on Their Fan Experience

    Full text link
    Over the years, professional and collegiate organizations have fought attempts to increase the legalization of sport wagering. One argument presented by those in opposition is that increased legalization would negatively alter the manner in which fans and spectators follow, consume, and react to sporting events (Tuohy, 2013). The current research was designed to examine possible changes in fandom by investigating fans’ perceptions of the impact of increasing legalized sport wagering on their fan experience, interest in sport, and sport consumption. Participants (N = 580) completed a questionnaire packet assessing demographics, economic fan motivation, fandom, and perceptions of the impact of increased access to legalized sport gambling. Data and analyses indicated that expected impacts were small and generally positive (e.g., a modest increase in interest in sport and consumption) and that these effects were greatest among groups historically active in sport gambling (e.g., persons higher in economic motivation and sport fandom)

    The Influence of Fantasy Sport Participation on Fans\u27 Perceptions of the Impact of the Legalization of Sport Wagering

    Get PDF
    As states look for ways to increase revenue, many are making attempts to increase the availability of legalized sport wagering. Extending previous work designed to further our understanding of how such actions could potentially impact sport fandom, the current study examined the impact of prior participation in fantasy sports, a pastime sharing much in common with sport gambling. The findings revealed that level of participation in fantasy sports were related to expectations of increased sport wagering, should such opportunities become more available. However, fantasy sport participation was not related to expected changes in sport interest or consumption

    A Case When You Can\u27t Fool Mother Nature: Understanding and Addressing Issues Linked to Organizational Decisions Stemming From a Natural Disaster

    No full text
    Julie Tyler was recently hired as President of the Sacramento River Cats, a Triple-A affiliate of the San Francisco Giants. With a little over one month on the job, Julie encounters a situation she has never had to deal with when an earthquake strikes her facility. The River Cats are not severely impacted by the earthquake, but a rival organization (the Fresno Grizzlies; Triple-A affiliate of the Houston Astros) experiences some fairly serious damage and injuries. Julie has to decide whether to modify the schedule to meet the needs of the Grizzlies, to appease some of her other stakeholders with varying interests, and/or pursue a competitive advantage for her organization. Julie makes the decision to review a similar situation for guidance on her decision. The situation she decides to employ is a series relocation that the Houston Astros had to make to Tampa, Florida following the devastation created by Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. Her decision has to be made expeditiously as their next series with the Grizzlies takes place in four days

    Sport Fan Evaluations of a Major League Baseball Season: Key Predictors and Influence on Future Evaluations and Consumption Behaviors

    No full text
    The current study examined fan evaluations of Major League Baseball team performance for a previous season as well as predictions of, and consumption expectations for, an upcoming season. With respect to evaluations of the recently completed season, appraisals were positively predicted by team identification, actual wins, and the number of playoff series played; evaluations were negatively predicted by simply making the playoffs. As for expectations for the next season, evaluations of the previous season, team identification, and actual wins were key predictors as those with more positive evaluations, higher levels of identification, and rooting for teams with fewer wins expected better performances from their team. Regarding consumption, team identification and expectations for the upcoming year were frequent predictors of a variety of consumption forms (e.g. attendance at home games, television viewing)

    The Strategies Sport Fans Used to Cope with the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown of Sporting Events

    No full text
    When the COVID-19 pandemic shut down occurred, virtually all sports leagues—from recreational sports to professional leagues—were paused or canceled. This left a gap for fans of those sports to fill. The purpose of the present research study was threefold: 1) to examine what strategies sport fans used to cope with the loss of the live sport viewership/spectatorship; 2) determine how effective fans believed those coping mechanisms to be; and 3) examine fans’ behavioral intentions once sports were allowed to resume. Participants were recruited via a snowball sample and the Amazon MTurk platform. A total of 384 sport fans responded to the survey. While not all participants responded to all items, 168 indicated coping mechanisms for dealing with not watching sports and 219 reported coping mechanisms for not attending sports. The most common coping mechanism was watching old sporting events on television or via the internet. These mechanisms were reported to be very effective in helping participants cope with the loss of sports (M = 5.76, SD = 1.68 on a 1 to 8 scale). These findings provide support for the Team Identification – Social Psychological Health Model and suggest areas for interventions for sport marketers who are looking to maintain fans’ loyalty during future shutdowns of sport seasons, or other instances of missed sporting events

    Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

    Get PDF
    Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

    Long-term (180-Day) outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial

    No full text
    Importance The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months
    corecore