Trends in fatal occupational injury rates among older workers before and after the Great Recession of 2008.

BACKGROUND: Older workers experience higher rates of fatal occupational injury than younger workers worldwide. In North Carolina, the population of older workers more than doubled between 2000 and 2017. In 2008, the Great Recession changed occupational patterns among all age groups. We examined annual rates and distribution of fatal occupational injuries experienced by older workers, comparing the pre-recession period (2000-2007) to the post-recession period (2009-2017). METHODS: Detailed information on all fatal occupational injuries during the period between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2017 were abstracted from the records of the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the office of vital records. The decennial Census and American Community Survey were used to estimate the population at risk and derive annual rates of fatal occupational injury. RESULTS: During the study period, 537 occupational fatalities occurred among workers 55+ years of age. The rate of fatal occupational injury among older workers declined 2.8% per year, with a 7.7% yearly decline in the pre-recession period compared with a 1.4% increase per year in the post-recession period. Workers 65+ years of age experienced rate increases in both periods. The highest rates of unintentional fatal occupational injury (injuries that were not purposefully inflicted) were observed in forestry, fishing hunting and trapping, and wood building manufacturing. Intentional fatal occupational injury rates (homicide, suicide) were highest in transportation, gas/service stations and grocery/food stores. CONCLUSIONS: Older workers have persistently high rates of fatal occupational injury in North Carolina before and after the Great Recession.

Return to play and risk of repeat concussion in collegiate football players: comparative analysis from the NCAA Concussion Study (1999-2001) and CARE Consortium (2014-2017).

OBJECTIVE: We compared data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Concussion Study (1999-2001) and the NCAA-Department of Defense Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium (2014-2017) to examine how clinical management, return to play (RTP) and risk of repeat concussion in collegiate football players have changed over the past 15 years. METHODS: We analysed data on reported duration of symptoms, symptom-free waiting period (SFWP), RTP and occurrence of within-season repeat concussion in collegiate football players with diagnosed concussion from the NCAA Study (n=184) and CARE (n=701). RESULTS: CARE athletes had significantly longer symptom duration (CARE median=5.92 days, IQR=3.02-9.98 days; NCAA median=2.00 days, IQR=1.00-4.00 days), SFWP (CARE median=6.00 days, IQR=3.49-9.00 days; NCAA median=0.98 days, IQR=0.00-4.00 days) and RTP (CARE median=12.23 days, IQR=8.04-18.92 days; NCAA median=3.00 days, IQR=1.00-8.00 days) than NCAA Study athletes (all p<0.0001). In CARE, there was only one case of repeat concussion within 10 days of initial injury (3.7% of within-season repeat concussions), whereas 92% of repeat concussions occurred within 10 days in the NCAA Study (p<0.001). The average interval between first and repeat concussion in CARE was 56.41 days, compared with 5.59 days in the NCAA Study (M difference=50.82 days; 95% CI 38.37 to 63.27; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that concussion in collegiate football is managed more conservatively than 15 years ago. These changes in clinical management appear to have reduced the risk of repetitive concussion during the critical period of cerebral vulnerability after sport-related concussion (SRC). These data support international guidelines recommending additional time for brain recovery before athletes RTP after SRC.

Impact of youth sports specialisation on career and task-specific athletic performance: a systematic review following the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) Collaborative Research Network's 2019 Youth Early Sport Specialisation Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The impact, positive or negative, of youth sport specialisation (YSS) on short-term and long-term performance is not fully understood; however, the desire to maximise performance goals is generally considered the primary reason children and adolescents specialise at a young age. We performed a systematic review of original research to establish the association of YSS and task-focused or career-focused performance outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched include PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2018 that reported original findings on the association of YSS and performance outcomes. Studies without an explicit measure of sport specialisation, for example, volume measures without measuring sport specialisation, were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included in the final review; 15 addressed career performance outcomes and 7 considered task performance outcomes. All identified studies were cross-sectional or retrospective in design. The proportion of elite athletes who specialised early ranged between 7% and 85%, depending on sport and definition of specialisation. Elite athletes often specialised between the ages of 14 and 15 compared with their non-elite or semi-elite peers who typically specialised prior to 13 years. In addition, neuromuscular control, anterior reach asymmetry and physical task outcomes did not differ by specialisation status. CONCLUSION: The volume and methodological rigour of published research in this field are limited. Our review suggests that YSS is not required to achieve success at elite levels. YSS also does not appear to improve task-related performance (eg, anterior reach, neuromuscular control) outcomes for specialised athletes when compared with non-specialised athletes during childhood and adolescence.

Validity of self-reported hearing loss in adults: performance of three single questions / Validade da perda auditiva auto-referida em adultos: desempenho de três perguntas únicas / Validez de la pérdida auditiva auto-referida en adultos: desempeño de tres preguntas únicas

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the validity of three single questions used to assess self-reported hearing loss as compared to pure-tone audiometry in an adult population. METHODS: A validity study was performed with a random sub-sample of 188 subjects aged 30 to 65 years, drawn from the fourth wave of a population-based cohort study carried out in Salvador, Northeastern Brazil. Data were collected in household visits using questionnaires. Three questions were used to separately assess self-reported hearing loss: Q1, "Do you feel you have a hearing loss?"; Q2, "In general, would you say your hearing is 'excellent,' 'very good,' 'good,' 'fair,' 'poor'?"; Q3, "Currently, do you think you can hear 'the same as before', 'less than before only in the right ear', 'less than before only in the left ear', 'less than before in both ears'?". Measures of accuracy were estimated through seven measures including Youden index. Responses to each question were compared to the results of pure-tone audiometry to estimate accuracy measures. RESULTS: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 79.6 percent, 77.4 percent for Q1; 66.9 percent, 85.1 percent for Q2; and 81.5 percent, 76.4 percent for Q3, respectively. The Youden index ranged from 51.9 percent (Q2) to 57.0 percent (Q1) and 57.9 percent (Q3). CONCLUSIONS: Each of all three questions provides responses accurate enough to support their use to assess self-reported hearing loss in epidemiological studies with adult populations when pure-tone audiometry is not feasible.

OBJETIVO: Estimar a validade de três perguntas únicas utilizadas para avaliar a perda auditiva auto-referida em comparação com a audiometria de tons puros em uma população adulta. MÉTODOS: Estudo de validade realizado com uma sub-amostra aleatória de 188 indivíduos, com idade entre 30 e 65 anos, selecionados da quarta fase (2006) de um estudo de coorte de base populacional conduzido em Salvador, BA. Dados foram coletados em entrevistas domiciliares utilizando-se questionários. Foram utilizadas três perguntas para avaliar, separadamente, a perda auditiva auto-referida: Q1, "Você sente que você tem uma perda auditiva?"; Q2, "Em geral, você diria que sua audição é 'excelente', 'muito boa', 'boa', 'regular', 'ruim'?"; Q3, "Atualmente, você acha que 'ouve da mesma forma que ouvia antes', 'apenas o ouvido direito ouve menos do que antes', 'apenas o ouvido esquerdo ouve menos do que antes', 'os dois ouvidos ouvem menos do que ouviam antes'?". Para estimar as medidas de acurácia foram utilizadas sete medidas, incluindo o índice de Youden. As respostas obtidas para cada pergunta foram comparadas aos resultados da audiometria de tons puros. RESULTADOS: Estimativas de sensibilidade e especificidade foram, respectivamente, (Q1) 79,6 por cento e 77,4 por cento, (Q2) 66,9 por cento e 85,1 por cento, (Q3) 81,5 por cento e 76,4 por cento. O índice Youden variou de 51,9 por cento (Q2), a 57,0 por cento (Q1) e 57,9 por cento (Q3). CONCLUSÕES: Cada pergunta permite obter respostas com acurácia suficiente para recomendar o uso da perda auditiva auto-referida em estudos epidemiológicos com adultos quando a audiometria de tons puros não for factível.

OBJETIVO: Estimar la validez de tres preguntas únicas utilizadas para evaluar la pérdida auditiva auto-referida en comparación con la audiometría de sonidos puros en una población adulta. MÉTODOS: Estudio de validez realizado con una sub-muestra aleatoria de 188 individuos, con edad entre 30 y 65 años, seleccionados de la cuarta fase (2006) de un estudio de cohorte de base poblacional conducido en Salvador, noreste de Brasil. Datos fueron colectados en entrevistas domiciliares utilizándose cuestionarios. Fueron utilizadas tres preguntas para evaluar separadamente, la pérdida auditiva auto-referida: Q1, "Siente usted que tiene una pérdida auditiva?"; Q2, "En general, diría usted que su audición es 'excelente', 'muy buena', 'buena', 'regular', 'mala'?"; Q3, "Actualmente, considera usted que 'oye de la misma forma que oía antes', 'sólo el oído derecho escucha menos que antes', 'sólo el oído izquierdo escucha menos que antes', 'los dos oídos escuchan menos que antes'?". Para estimar las medidas de precisión se utilizaron siete medidas, incluyendo el índice de Youden. Las respuestas obtenidas para cada pregunta fueron comparadas a los resultados de la audiometría de sonidos puros. RESULTADOS: Estimaciones de sensibilidad y especificidad fueron, respectivamente, (Q1) 79,6 por ciento y 77,4 por ciento, (Q2) 66,9 por ciento y 85,1 por ciento, (Q3) 81,5 por ciento y 76,4 por ciento. El índice Youden varió de 51,9 por ciento (Q2), a 57,0 por ciento (Q1) y 57,9 por ciento (Q3). CONCLUSIONES: Cada pregunta permite obtener respuestas con precisión suficiente para recomendar el uso de la pérdida auditiva auto-referida en estudios epidemiológicos con adultos cuando la audiometría de sonidos puros no sea factible.

Validity of self-reported hearing loss in adults: performance of three single questions.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the validity of three single questions used to assess self-reported hearing loss as compared to pure-tone audiometry in an adult population. METHODS: A validity study was performed with a random sub-sample of 188 subjects aged 30 to 65 years, drawn from the fourth wave of a population-based cohort study carried out in Salvador, Northeastern Brazil. Data were collected in household visits using questionnaires. Three questions were used to separately assess self-reported hearing loss: Q1, "Do you feel you have a hearing loss?"; Q2, "In general, would you say your hearing is 'excellent,' 'very good,' 'good,' 'fair,' 'poor'?"; Q3, "Currently, do you think you can hear 'the same as before', 'less than before only in the right ear', 'less than before only in the left ear', 'less than before in both ears'?". Measures of accuracy were estimated through seven measures including Youden index. Responses to each question were compared to the results of pure-tone audiometry to estimate accuracy measures. RESULTS: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 79.6%, 77.4% for Q1; 66.9%, 85.1% for Q2; and 81.5%, 76.4% for Q3, respectively. The Youden index ranged from 51.9% (Q2) to 57.0% (Q1) and 57.9% (Q3). CONCLUSIONS: Each of all three questions provides responses accurate enough to support their use to assess self-reported hearing loss in epidemiological studies with adult populations when pure-tone audiometry is not feasible.