Search

Identify and prioritise strategies to optimise physical activity participation in the community gym setting for young adults with cerebral palsy. An e-Delphi method was implemented over three rounds with four stakeholder groups (young adults with cerebral palsy, their families, gym staff or exercise professionals, and health professionals). Strategies for change were identified by the stakeholders in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, strategies for change were rated on the importance for implementation using a 7-point Likert scale (1 being lowest importance, 7 being highest). The consensus was achieved if ≥70% of participants identified a strategy as high importance. Seventy participants (20 young adults 10 family members, 21 health professionals, and 19 exercise professionals) identified 83 strategies for improving gym participation. Of these, 44 strategies met the consensus criteria. The highest priority strategies related to changing the physical environment, addressing cost barriers, gym staff training, and developing partnerships between sectors. Addressing physical accessibility, cost of attendance and the skills of gym staff were agreed upon by the stakeholder groups as priority areas for future resource allocation and research translation. Clinicians and community leisure facilities must work with consumers to implement strategies in their local contexts. The physical environment, gym staff training, and the cost of attendance are the priority areas for future interventions agreed on by key stakeholder groups Health professionals can facilitate community participation by partnering with the recreation and research sectors to create pathways to gym exercise Health professionals can play a role in developing the knowledge, skills and confidence of gym staff to support young people with cerebral palsy in the gym When implementing 1:1 social support in community gym settings, consider the preferences of young adults and the resources available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening services in Ireland were cancelled or postponed for periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of screening colonoscopy delays after a positive FIT on clinical and histopathological outcomes due to these restrictions., Methods: Participants in the Irish National Bowel Screening Programme with a positive Immunochemical Faecal Test (FIT) during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-December 2021) were included. Patients were categorised into attended for a colonoscopy <3 months and attended for colonoscopy ≥3-17 months post positive FIT. Chi-Square Test of independence was performed using WinPepi., Results: 3227 individuals had a complete index colonoscopy <3 months and 262 attended colonoscopy from ≥3 to 17 months post positive FIT. Of the clients whose colonoscopy was between ≥3-17 months from positive FIT, the median wait time was 3 months. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for CRC (5.8 % vs 5.0 %, p=0.544) or for the proportion of cancer stage I, stage II and unknown (33.7 %, 40.6 %, 25.7 %, p=0.411). There was no difference in the proportions of adenomas (57.8 % vs 58.4 %, p=0.849) and the proportion of advanced adenomas (7.7 % vs 10.7 %, p=0.077) detected between the two groups. A similar proportion of polyps were detected in individuals whose index colonoscopies were postponed <3 months from positive FIT (66.9 % vs 66 %, p=0.786)., Conclusion: A median delay of 3 months in screening colonoscopies after a positive FIT does not adversely impact clinical or histopathological outcomes. There was no significant difference in cancer staging, advanced adenomas or polyps detected between those who attended colonoscopies <3 months and ≥3-17 months post positive FIT. COVID-19 related disruptions to the normal functioning of the Irish bowel screening programme did not compromise our key objectives of advanced adenoma and cancer detection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)