Sprint-interval training (SIT) is a viable method to improve health and fitness. However, researchers have questioned the utility of SIT because of its strenuous nature. The current study aimed to determine if manipulating the sprint and recovery duration, while maintaining the 1:8 work to rest ratio, could uncover a more favourable SIT protocol. Nine healthy active males (age, 23.3 ± 3.0 years; body mass index, 22.4 ± 2.2 kg·m −2 ; maximal oxygen consumption, 48.9 ± 5.

Background When evaluating randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinicians will often refer to the abstract for an initial assessment of the results and to determine whether a full-text review is warranted. Objectives This project aims to assess the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts checklist. Methods A computerized database search of OVID MEDLINE was performed. All primary RCTs published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals (by 2016 International Scientific Indexing impact factor) from 2011 to 2018 were included. Two reviewers, blinded to journal and author, independently and in duplicate, scored abstracts employing the 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Results This review identified 126 RCTs that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Included studies were distributed across 5 journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 83), JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery (n = 8), Aesthetic Surgery Journal (n = 33), Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (n = 2), and the Journal of Hand Surgery–European Volume (n = 0). Mean overall item adherence across all abstracts was 7 (SD ± 2). The most poorly reported items were “trial registration,” “method of randomization,” and “source of trial funding” and appeared in 4%, 2.4%, and 0% of abstracts, respectively. Conclusions There is limited adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts checklist among RCT abstracts published within the top 5 plastic surgery journals. Given the reliance of clinicians on abstract reporting, omitting essential trial details can lead to an inaccurate interpretation of trial results and improper application in clinical practice. Active endorsement of the CONSORT for abstracts checklist is required to improve the quality of RCT abstract reporting.

Objective Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being utilized in health behavior change interventions. To determine the presence of underlying behavior change mechanisms, apps for physical activity have been coded for behavior change techniques (BCTs). However, apps for sedentary behavior have yet to be assessed for BCTs. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to review apps designed to decrease sedentary time and determine the presence of BCTs. Methods Systematic searches of the iTunes App and Google Play stores were completed using keyword searches. Two reviewers independently coded free ( n = 36) and paid ( n = 14) app descriptions using a taxonomy of 93 BCTs (December 2016–January 2017). A subsample ( n = 4) of free apps were trialed for one week by the reviewers and coded for the presence of BCTs (February 2017). Results In the free and paid app descriptions, only 10 of 93 BCTs were present with a mean of 2.42 BCTs (range 0–6) per app. The BCTs coded most frequently were “prompts/cues” ( n = 43), “information about health consequences” ( n = 31), and “self-monitoring of behavior” ( n = 17). For the four free apps that were trialed, three additional BCTs were coded that were not coded in the descriptions: “graded tasks,” “focus on past successes,” and “behavior substitution.” Conclusions These sedentary behavior apps have fewer BCTs compared with physical activity apps and traditional (i.e., non-app) physical activity and healthy eating interventions. The present study sheds light on the behavior change potential of sedentary behavior apps and provides practical insight about coding for BCTs in apps.

No abstract

Objective:A team-based approach to obtaining prior authorization approval was implemented utilizing a specialty pharmacy, a clinic-based pharmacy technician specialist, and a registered nurse to work with providers to obtain approval for medications for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the time to approval for prescribed treatment of HCV infection.Methods:A retrospective observational study was conducted including patients treated for HCV infection by clinic providers who received at least 1 oral direct-acting antiviral HCV medication. Patients were divided into 2 groups, based on whether they were treated before or after the implementation of the team-based approach. Student t tests were used to compare average wait times before and after the intervention.Results:The sample included 180 patients, 68 treated before the intervention and 112 patients who initiated therapy after. All patients sampled required prior authorization approval by a third-party payer to begin therapy. There was a statistically significant reduction (P = .02) in average wait time in the postintervention group (15.6 ± 12.1 days) once adjusted using dates of approval.Conclusions:Pharmacy collaboration may provide increases in efficiency in provider prior authorization practices and reduced wait time for patients to begin treatment.