Bodybuilding is a sport that requires adequate training strategies in order to maximize skeletal muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of the present review was to perform a narrative assessment of the training routines designed for muscle hypertrophy used by bodybuilders. A search was carried out in the databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scielo, EBSCO, LILACS, SportDiscus, Web of Science, and CINAHL with the words "Resistance training" and "hypertrophy" in bodybuilders and their variations that involve the respective outcomes. Fourteen studies were identified that investigated the long-term training routines of bodybuilders. These studies demonstrate a pattern in the training organization, whereby there is a separation of training into four distinct periods: off-season, pre-contest, peak week, and post-contest. Each period has a specific spectrum of intensity load, total training volume, and exercise type (multi- or single-joint). We conclude that bodybuilding competitors employed a higher intensity load, lower number of repetitions, and longer rest intervals in the off-season than pre-contest.
Little is known about HIV and its primary routes of transmission in less populated areas. The purpose of this exploratory study was to contrast the real and perceived HIV risk among out-of-treatment drug users in a multi-site sample of low-, medium-, and high-population density counties in six states and Washington, D.C. Drug users in medium density areas "perceived" their risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS as lower than those in the high-density areas. A multivariate logistic regression model found that the perceived risk could be predicted primarily as a function of lifetime HIV, lifetime STDs, needle use, having multiple sexual partners, and community population density. Because of different risk patterns and a "false" sense of risk, it is important to expand HIV risk reduction activities to include less populated areas.
In: Child abuse & neglect: the international journal ; official journal of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Band 140, S. 106155
Disruption of health services due to the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to derail progress being made in tuberculosis control efforts. Forcibly displaced people and migrant populations face particular vulnerabilities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which leaves them at further risk of developing TB. They inhabit environments where measures such as "physical distancing" are impossible to realize and where facilities like camps and informal temporary settlements can easily become sites of rapid disease transmission. In this viewpoint we utilize three case studies-from Peru, South Africa, and Syria-to illustrate the lived experience of forced migration and mobile populations, and the impact of COVID-19 on TB among these populations. We discuss the dual pandemics of TB and COVID-19 in the context of migration through a syndemic lens, to systematically address the upstream social, economic, structural and political factors that - in often deleterious dynamics - foster increased vulnerabilities and risk. Addressing TB, COVID-19 and migration from a syndemic perspective, not only draws systematic attention to comorbidity and the relevance of social and structural context, but also helps to find solutions: the true reality of syndemic interactions can only be fully understood by considering a particular population and bio- social context, and ensuring that they receive the comprehensive care that they need. It also provides avenues for strengthening and expanding the existing infrastructure for TB care to tackle both COVID-19 and TB in migrants and refugees in an integrated and synergistic manner.
Globally, geospatial concepts are becoming increasingly important in epidemiological and public health research. Individual level linked population-based data afford researchers with opportunities to undertake complex analyses unrivalled by other sources. However, there are significant challenges associated with using such data for impactful geohealth research. Issues range from extracting, linking and anonymising data, to the translation of findings into policy whilst working to often conflicting agendas of government and academia. Innovative organisational partnerships are therefore central to effective data use. To extend and develop existing collaborations between the institutions, in June 2019, authors from the Leeds Institute for Data Analytics and the Alan Turing Institute, London, visited the Geohealth Laboratory based at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. This paper provides an overview of insight shared during a two-day workshop considering aspects of linked population-based data for impactful geohealth research. Specifically, we discuss both the collaborative partnership between New Zealand's Ministry of Health (MoH) and the University of Canterbury's GeoHealth Lab and novel infrastructure, and commercial partnerships enabled through the Leeds Institute for Data Analytics and the Alan Turing Institute in the UK. We consider the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure as a case study approach to population-based linked health data and compare similar approaches taken by the UK towards integrated data infrastructures, including the ESRC Big Data Network centres, the UK Biobank, and longitudinal cohorts. We reflect on and compare the geohealth landscapes in New Zealand and the UK to set out recommendations and considerations for this rapidly evolving discipline.
Globally, geospatial concepts are becoming increasingly important in epidemiological and public health research. Individual level linked population-based data afford researchers with opportunities to undertake complex analyses unrivalled by other sources. However, there are significant challenges associated with using such data for impactful geohealth research. Issues range from extracting, linking and anonymising data, to the translation of findings into policy whilst working to often conflicting agendas of government and academia. Innovative organisational partnerships are therefore central to effective data use. To extend and develop existing collaborations between the institutions, in June 2019, authors from the Leeds Institute for Data Analytics and the Alan Turing Institute, London, visited the Geohealth Laboratory based at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. This paper provides an overview of insight shared during a two-day workshop considering aspects of linked population-based data for impactful geohealth research. Specifically, we discuss both the collaborative partnership between New Zealand's Ministry of Health (MoH) and the University of Canterbury's GeoHealth Lab and novel infrastructure, and commercial partnerships enabled through the Leeds Institute for Data Analytics and the Alan Turing Institute in the UK. We consider the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure as a case study approach to population-based linked health data and compare similar approaches taken by the UK towards integrated data infrastructures, including the ESRC Big Data Network centres, the UK Biobank, and longitudinal cohorts. We reflect on and compare the geohealth landscapes in New Zealand and the UK to set out recommendations and considerations for this rapidly evolving discipline.
Species distributions are influenced by processes occurring at multiple spatial scales. It is therefore insufficient to model species distribution at a single geographic scale, as this does not provide the necessary understanding of determining factors. Instead, multiple approaches are needed, each differing in spatial extent, grain, and research objective. Here, we present the first attempt to model continent-wide great ape density distribution. We used site-level estimates of African great ape abundance to (1) identify socioeconomic and environmental factors that drive densities at the continental scale, and (2) predict range-wide great ape density. We collated great ape abundance estimates from 156 sites and defined 134 pseudo-absence sites to represent additional absence locations. The latter were based on locations of unsuitable environmental conditions for great apes, and on existing literature. We compiled seven socioeconomic and environmental covariate layers and fitted a generalized linear model to investigate their influence on great ape abundance. We used an Akaike-weighted average of full and subset models to predict the range-wide density distribution of African great apes for the year 2015. Great ape densities were lowest where there were high Human Footprint and Gross Domestic Product values; the highest predicted densities were in Central Africa, and the lowest in West Africa. Only 10.7% of the total predicted population was found in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Category I and II protected areas. For 16 out of 20 countries, our estimated abundances were largely in line with those from previous studies. For four countries, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and South Sudan, the estimated populations were excessively high. We propose further improvements to the model to overcome survey and predictor data limitations, which would enable a temporally dynamic approach for monitoring great apes across their range based on key indicators.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.