The Prioritized Research Agenda for the Athletic Training Profession: A Report From the Strategic Alliance Research Agenda Task Force.

CONTEXT: Athletic trainers (ATs) must be equipped with evidence to inform their clinical practice. A systematic, inclusive, and continuous process for exploring research priorities is vital to the success of ATs and, more importantly, their patients' positive outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities and unify research with clinical practice to improve patient care and advance the profession. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. SETTING: Focus groups and a Web-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 ATs (43 men [49.4%], 44 women [50.6%]; age = 40 ± 11 years; experience = 18 ± 11 years) participated in focus groups. Of the 49 332 e-mails sent, 580 were undeliverable, 5131 ATs started the survey (access rate = 10.5%), and 4514 agreed to participate (response rate = 9.3%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Our study consisted of 6 focus-group sessions, a content-expert review, and a Web-based survey. Themes from the focus groups were used to develop the research priorities and survey instrument. We used the 25-item validated survey to determine whether the research priorities and findings of the focus groups were generalizable. Endorsement of research priorities and recommendations was achieved when respondents indicated they agreed or strongly agreed. RESULTS: Respondents endorsed 5 research priorities: health care competency (n = 4438/4493, 98.8%), vitality of the profession (n = 4319/4455, 96.9%), health professions education (n = 3966/4419, 89.8%), health care economics (n = 4246/4425, 96.0%), and health information technology (n = 3893/4438, 87.7%). We also made the following recommendations: (1) develop funding initiatives that align with the agenda, (2) develop postdoctoral fellowships focused on clinical research, (3) facilitate collaborative relationships between clinicians and researchers, and (4) make research evidence more readily available and more applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic and inclusive process, we developed a prioritized research agenda for the athletic training profession. The agenda was endorsed by the leaders of each Strategic Alliance organization and adopted as the Athletic Training Research Agenda.

Subjective and objective assessment of sedentary behavior among college employees.

BACKGROUND: High levels of sedentary behavior are linked to increased mortality. In the United States, individuals spend 55-70% of their waking day being sedentary. Since most individuals spend large portions of their daily lives at work, quantifying the time engaged in sedentary behavior at work is emerging as an important health determinant. Studies profiling academic institutions, where a variety of personnel with diverse job descriptions are employed, are limited. Available studies focus mostly on subjective methods, with few using objective approaches. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to assess sedentary behavior among all occupational groups of a college in the Northeastern United States utilizing both a subjective and an objective method. METHODS: College employees (n = 367) completed the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ). A sub-sample of these employees (n = 127) subsequently wore an activPAL3 accelerometer 24 h per day for seven consecutive days. Outcome variables were time spent sitting, standing, stepping, and total number of steps. To assess fragmentation of sedentary behavior, the average duration of a sitting bout and sitting bouts/sitting hour were calculated. Differences between administrators, faculty, and staff, were analyzed using multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. RESULTS: The OSPAQ results indicated that administrators spent more of their working day sedentary (73.2 ± 17.7%) than faculty members (58.5 ± 19.6%, p < 0.05). For the objective phase of the study, complete data were analyzed from 86 participants. During a waking day, administrators (64.0 ± 8.1%) were more sedentary than faculty (56.0 ± 7.9%, p < 0.05) and fragmented their sitting less than staff (3.7 ± 0.7 and 4.5 ± 7.9 bouts of sitting/sitting hour, respectively; p < 0.05). This pattern was also seen during working hours, with administrators (4.9 ± 2.1) taking fewer breaks per hour than staff (6.9 ± 3.0, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Administrators are the most sedentary members of the campus community. However, overall, the level of sedentary behavior among employees was high. This study highlights the need for sedentary behavior interventions in the college/university environment.