Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Little is known about parental coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). This survey estimated the prevalence and predictive factors of vaccine hesitancy among parents of children with NDD. Methods A nationally representative cross-sectional survey was conducted from October 10 to 31, 2021. A structured vaccine hesitancy questionnaire was used to collect data from parents aged ≥ 18 years with children with NDD. In addition, individual face-to-face interviews were conducted at randomly selected places throughout Bangladesh. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Results A total of 396 parents participated in the study. Of these, 169 (42.7%) parents were hesitant to vaccinate their children. Higher odds of vaccine hesitancy were found among parents who lived in the northern zone (AOR = 17.15, 95% CI = 5.86–50.09; p  < 0.001), those who thought vaccines would not be safe and effective for Bangladeshi children (AOR = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.68–15.19; p  < 0.001), those who were either not vaccinated or did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine themselves (AOR = 12.14, 95% CI = 8.48–17.36; p  < 0.001), those who said that they or their family members had not tested positive for COVID-19 (AOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.07–4.25), and those who did not lose a family member to COVID-19 (AOR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.03–4.61; p  = 0.040). Furthermore, parents who were not likely to believe that their children or a family member could be infected with COVID-19 the following year (AOR = 4.99, 95% CI = 1.81–13.77; p  < 0.001) and who were not concerned at all about their children or a family member being infected the following year (AOR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.65–8.37; p  = 0.043) had significantly higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions Given the high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy, policymakers, public health practitioners, and pediatricians can implement and support strategies to ensure that children with NDD and their caregivers and family members receive the COVID-19 vaccine to fight pandemic induced hazards.

Objective: This case-control study investigated the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and musculoskeletal health complaints (MHC). The specific aims of the study were (1) to compare the 1-month prevalence of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients and participants who never tested positive for COVID-19 matched by the former group’s age and gender; (2) to identify the predictors of MHC among all participants, and (3) define the factors independently associated with MHC in post-acute COVID-19 patients. Methods and Analysis: The study was conducted in Bangladesh from February 24 to April 7, 2022. The face-to-face interview was taken using a paper-based semi-structured questionnaire. MHC was measured using the musculoskeletal subscale of subjective health complaints produced by Eriksen et al. Descriptive analysis was conducted to compute MHC prevalence and compare them across groups. Multiple logistic analyses were employed to identify MHC predictors for the participants. Results: The prevalence of MHC was 38.7%. Adjusted analysis suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with MHC (AOR = 3.248,95% CI = 2.307-4.571). Furthermore, unemployment (AOR = 4.156, 95% CI = 1.308-13.208), moderate illness (AOR = 2.947,95% CI = 1.216-7.144), treatment in hospitals’ general word (AOR = 4.388,95% CI = 1.878-10.254) and health complaints after COVID-19 (AOR = 4.796,95% CI = 2.196-10.472) were found to be the predictors of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Our study found a robust association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and MHC and recommends that healthcare authorities be prepared to deal with the high burden of MHC among post-acute COVID-19 patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires mass immunization to control the severity of symptoms and global spread. Data from developed countries have shown a high prevalence of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. However, parental vaccine hesitancy data in low- and middle-income countries are scarce. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of parental vaccine hesitancy and identify subgroups with higher odds of vaccine hesitancy in parents in Bangladesh. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on the parents of children aged <18 years from October 10, 2021 to October 31, 2021. Parents participated in face-to-face interviews in randomly selected locations in Bangladesh using a vaccine hesitancy questionnaire. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified using binary logistic regression analysis. Results: Data from 2,633 eligible parents were analyzed. Overall, 42.8% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for their youngest child. The final model suggested the following factors were associated with hesitancy: children's age; parent's age, religion, occupation, monthly household income, permanent address, living location, status of tobacco use, adherence with regular government vaccination programs (other than COVID-19), perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy among Bangladeshi children, self-vaccination intentions, reported family members' illness or death from COVID-19, and perceived threat of COVID-19 were the independent predictors of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Conversely, participants who were not tobacco users, parents who were very likely to believe that their children or family members could be infected with COVID-19 in the following year and who were very concerned about their children or a family member contracting COVID-19 in the next year had significantly lower odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions: Our study suggested that vaccine hesitation varied based on sociodemographic characteristics, religion, behavior, and perceived COVID-19 threat. Therefore, interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among specific subgroups are warranted.

This is a cross-sectional study that examined the association between fitness trainers’ educational qualifications and experience, and the risk of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain. The study included 1177 trainees (aged 15–60 years) from 74 fitness centers in Bangladesh. Data were collected by using the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire, including potential confounders such as demographic factors (e.g., age, occupation), and training-related factors (e.g., workout knowledge, overweight lifting). Multiple logistic regression was performed for a binary outcome (pain—yes or no), and a generalized linear model was fitted for the ordinal outcome (pain—sites of the body). The trainers’ lower experience (no or ≤1 year) was associated with higher odds of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.18–5.44) compared to trainers with >5 years of experience; however, no association was found between the trainers’ education and the risk of their trainees’ musculoskeletal pain, after controlling for potential confounders. Similarly, the trainees trained by trainers with lower experience had more than two-time the risk of having pain in different sites (IRR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.50–2.79). The trainers’ experience may play a pivotal role in the trainees’ musculoskeletal pain. Further study is warranted in this regard.

Background : Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires mass immunization to control the symptoms and global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data from developed countries reported a high prevalence of parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. However, parental vaccine hesitancy data in countries with low and middle income are scarce. The goal of this study was to assess the prevalence of parental vaccine hesitancy and identify subgroups with higher odds of vaccine hesitancy. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on parents of children aged <18 years from October 10, 2021, to October 31, 2021. Parents aged ≥18 years underwent face-to-face interviews in randomly selected places in Bangladesh using a vaccine hesitancy questionnaire. Predictors were identified using binary logistic regression analysis. Results: Data from 2633 eligible parents were analyzed. Overall, 42.8% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for their youngest child. The final model suggested that children's age, parent's age, religion, occupation, monthly household income, permanent address, living location, the status of tobacco use, adherence with the regular government vaccination programs (other than COVID-19), perception about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy among Bangladeshi children, self-vaccination intention, report about family members' illness or death from COVID-19, and perceived COVID-19 threat were the independent predictors of parental vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions : Vaccine hesitation varied based on sociodemographic characteristics, religion, behavior, and perceived COVID-19 threat. Therefore, interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among subgroups are warranted.

Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes ( n  = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).

The present study proposes to measure and quantify the heart rate variability (HRV) changes during effort as a function of the heart rate and to test the capacity of the produced indices to predict cardiorespiratory fitness measures. Therefore, the beat-to-beat cardiac time interval series of 18 adolescent athletes (15.2 ± 2.0 years) measured during maximal graded effort test were detrended using a dynamical first-order differential equation model. HRV was then calculated as the standard deviation of the detrended RR intervals (SDRR) within successive windows of one minute. The variation of this measure of HRV during exercise is properly fitted by an exponential decrease of the heart rate: the SDRR is divided by 2 every increase of heart rate of 20 beats/min. The HR increase necessary to divide by 2 the HRV is linearly inversely correlated with the maximum oxygen consumption (r = -0.60, p = 0.006), the maximal aerobic power (r = -0.62, p = 0.006), and, to a lesser extent, to the power at the ventilatory thresholds (r = -0.53, p = 0.02 and r = -0.47, p = 0.05 for the first and second threshold). It indicates that the decrease of the HRV when the heart rate increases is faster among athletes with better fitness. This analysis, based only on cardiac measurements, provides a promising tool for the study of cardiac measurements generated by portable devices.

Abstract Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes ( n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity ( 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).

Abstract Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes ( n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity ( 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).