The effects of simulated monocular and binocular vision impairment on football penalty kick performance.

Sports performance is relatively robust under high levels of binocular blur. However, the limited research studies investigating monocular impairments has shown it has a larger impact on sport performance. This research study is relevant for classification in sports for athletes with vision impairment (VI), where visual acuity (VA) from the better eye is used during classification. Across two experiments, we aimed to establish the point at which binocular and monocular impairments affected performance in a football penalty kick (PK) through simulating varying severities of degraded VA and contrast sensitivity (CS) in active football players. In experiment one, 25 footballers performed PKs as VA and CS were systematically decreased in both eyes, and in one condition, visual field (VF) was reduced. The most severe VA/CS condition and reduced VF significantly impacted outcome, ball velocity and placement (ball kicked closer to the centre of the goal) (p < 0.05). In experiment two, 29 different footballers performed PKs as VA and CS of only the dominant eye were systematically decreased and in one condition the dominant eye was occluded, and participants viewed their environment through the non-dominant eye (monocular viewing). No differences were observed when assessing monocular impairments influence on outcome, velocity and ball placement. PKs have a high resilience to VI, but binocular impairment has a more immediate effect, suggesting binocular measures should be used in classification processes in football.

Accelerating Research With Technology: Rapid Recruitment for a Large-Scale Web-Based Sleep Study.

BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment can be a significant bottleneck in carrying out research studies. Connected health and mobile health platforms allow for the development of Web-based studies that can offer improvement in this domain. Sleep is of vital importance to the mental and physical health of all individuals, yet is understudied on a large scale or beyond the focus of sleep disorders. For this reason and owing to the availability of digital sleep tracking tools, sleep is well suited to being studied in a Web-based environment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate a method for speeding up the recruitment process and maximizing participant engagement using a novel approach, the Achievement Studies platform (Evidation Health, Inc, San Mateo, CA, USA), while carrying out a study that examined the relationship between participant sleep and daytime function. METHODS: Participants could access the Web-based study platform at any time from any computer or Web-enabled device to complete study procedures and track study progress. Achievement community members were invited to the study and assessed for eligibility. Eligible participants completed an electronic informed consent process to enroll in the study and were subsequently invited to complete an electronic baseline questionnaire. Then, they were asked to connect a wearable device account through their study dashboard, which shared their device data with the research team. The data were used to provide objective sleep and activity metrics for the study. Participants who completed the baseline questionnaires were subsequently sent a daily single-item Sleepiness Checker activity for 7 consecutive days at baseline and every 3 months thereafter for 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 1156 participants enrolled in the study within a 5-day recruitment window. In the 1st hour, the enrollment rate was 6.6 participants per minute (394 per hour). In the first 24 hours, the enrollment rate was 0.8 participants per minute (47 participants per hour). Overall, 1132 participants completed the baseline questionnaires (1132/1156, 97.9%) and 1047 participants completed the initial Sleepiness Checker activity (1047/1156, 90.6%). Furthermore, 1000 participants provided activity-specific wearable data (1000/1156, 86.5%) and 982 provided sleep-specific wearable data (982/1156, 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Achievement Studies platform allowed for rapid recruitment and high study engagement (survey completion and device data sharing). This approach to carrying out research appears promising. However, conducting research in this way requires that participants have internet access and own and use a wearable device. As such, our sample may not be representative of the general population.

A Diabetes Mobile App With In-App Coaching From a Certified Diabetes Educator Reduces A1C for Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes.

Purpose There are currently many diabetes apps available, but there is limited evidence demonstrating clinical impact. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a diabetes mobile app with in-app coaching by a certified diabetes educator on glycemic control for individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods A 12 week-long single-arm intent-to-treat trial evaluated the impact of a diabetes mobile app and coaching program (One Drop | Mobile With One Drop | Experts), which facilitated tracking of self-care and included an in-app diabetes education program, on A1C for individuals with type 2 diabetes and an A1C ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol). An online study platform (Achievement Studies, Evidation Health Inc, San Mateo, CA) was used to screen, consent, and enroll participants; collect study data; and track participants' progress throughout the study. Baseline and study end A1C measurements as well as questionnaire data from participants were collected. Results Participants (n = 146) were 52 ± 9 years old, 71% female, 25% black or Hispanic, diagnosed with diabetes for 11 ± 7 years, and with a mean baseline A1C of 9.87% ± 2.0 (84 mmol/mol). In adjusted repeated measures models, mean A1C improved by -0.86% among study completers (n = 127), -0.96% among active users of the app and coaching program (n = 93), and -1.32% among active users with a baseline A1C ≥9.0% (75 mmol/mol) (n = 53). Conclusions This program was associated with a clinically meaningful and significant reduction in A1C and can potentially increase access to effective diabetes self-management education and support for individuals with diabetes.

Involvement of Primary Care Physicians in the Decision Making and Care of Patients With Breast Cancer.

Purpose Collaborative care between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) may improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care. Yet, patient perspectives about how involved the PCPs were in their breast cancer care and treatment decisions remain unknown. Patients and Methods A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013 to 2014, as reported to the SEER registries in Los Angeles, California, and Georgia, were sent a survey approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,279, 71% response rate). The distributions of patient-perceived PCP quality (six questions about PCP access and awareness of values) and the following three measures of patient-reported PCP involvement were assessed: how informed the respondent felt her PCP was about her breast cancer (engagement); how often the respondent talked with her PCP (communication); and how often the respondent felt the PCP participated in treatment decisions (participation). Adjusted mean scores of patient-reported satisfaction with and deliberation about the surgical treatment decision were then compared across levels of PCP engagement, communication, and participation using multivariable linear regression. Results The majority of women in this sample perceived high PCP quality (63.6%), high PCP breast cancer engagement (66.2%), and high PCP communication (69.1%). More than a third of women (35.4%) reported that their PCP participated in their treatment decisions. Higher PCP engagement was associated with higher decision satisfaction when compared with low PCP engagement (adjusted P = .003). Conclusion Patient perceptions of PCP quality and PCP involvement in breast cancer care during treatment are high for most women, and PCPs often participate in breast cancer treatment decisions. However, PCP involvement did not lead to meaningful improvements in patients' appraisals of their decision making.