Eating disorder symptoms among NCAA Division I female athletes in the Southeastern Conference

The purposes of this study were to determine: a) eating disorder symptoms among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Division I, intercollegiate female athletes in the Southeastern Conference (SEC), b) if lean sport athletes were more prone to eating disorder symptoms than non-lean sport athletes, c) what percentage of athletes who were at risk for eating disorders sought help or support, and d) what kind of assistance was offered from athletic institutions in the SEC to help the student-athletes deal with eating disorder issues. The participants in this study were NCAA, Division I, female intercollegiate athletes from four universities in the SEC. There were 325 participants all between 18-23 years old, and currently a member of an intercollegiate sport in the SEC. The selection of the participants was based on the geographical location and close proximity of the Division I universities in the SEC. Availability of participants was based on which schools and athletes agreed to participate in this study. The universities which had agreed to participate in this study were sent questionnaires which were to be completed and returned to the researcher for analysis. Instrumentation used for this study involved two survey questionnaires and a clinical instrument. The first survey questionnaire served as the demographic questionnaire. Its purpose was to determine in what sport the participant was involved, and determined the age and year of eligibility of the participant. The second instrument used in this study was the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) questionnaire (Gamer, 1991). The EDI-2,91-item self-report, 6-point, Likert-type scale questionnaire was used to measure symptoms related to anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. The final survey questionnaire was also designed to ascertain information from the participants regarding the type(s) of support system(s) offered by their athletic institutions for eating disorders. The survey questionnaire also addressed the question, If there is not an organized support program available specifically for the female college athletes with eating disorders, would the athletes like to see their university implement such a program? The study determined that there were no significant differences when evaluating lean and non-lean sport athletes for the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms under the subscale BUL. There were, however, significant findings of lean sport athletes scoring higher than the general female college population for the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms; their scores were significantly higher than expected by chance at the .05 level of reliability (Hays, 1973). The findings of the study also revealed that lean sport athletes were more prone to one type of eating disorder symptoms than were non-lean athletes: the lean sport athletes did score in the C range on DT significantly more often than did non-lean sport athletes. This difference also was significant at the .05 level of confidence (Hays, 1973). Regarding the third question posed in the study, what percentage of athletes prone to eating disorders sought help or support, there were 17 (22.1%) participants who sought help from their athletic institution which already had a program designed to help female athletes deal with eating disorders, depression, and/or body dissatisfaction. The other question posed in the purpose of the study was what kind of assistance was offered from athletic institutions in the SEC to help student-athletes deal with eating disorder issues. The response regarding this question was 223 (68.6%) participants stated their athletic department provided an organized support program specifically designed for female athletes to attend to discuss personal issues. There were 212 (65.2%) participants who noted that their athletic department provided organized team talks regarding eating disorders and other personal issues, however, due to the confidentiality issues surrounding this study, it was not possible to discuss which athletic institutions provided these types of programs

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p &lt; .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p &lt; .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (&lt; 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease