A comparison of the physiological demands of rugby union match-play when determined by absolute (ABS) or individual (IND) velocity bands in Global Positioning System (GPS) analysis

Since turning professional in 1995 there have been considerable advances in the research on the demands of rugby union, largely using Global Positioning System (GPS) analysis over the last 10 years. A systematic review on the use of GPS, particularly the setting of absolute (ABS) and individual (IND) velocity bands in field based, intermittent, high-intensity (HI) team sports was undertaken. From 3669 records identified, 38 studies were included for qualitative analysis. Little agreement on the definition of movement intensities within team sports was found, only three papers, all on rugby union, had used IND bands, with only one comparing ABS and IND methods. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the demands within positions when comparing ABS and IND methods for GPS analysis and if these differences are significantly different between the forward and back positional groups. A total of 214 data files were recorded from 26 players in 17 matches of the 2015/2016 Scottish BT Premiership. ABS velocity zones 1-7 were set at 1) 0-6, 2) 6.1-11, 3) 11.1-15, 4) 15.1-18, 5) 18.1-21, 6) 21.1-15 and 7) 25.1-40km.h-1 while IND zones 1-7 were 1) <20, 2) 20-40, 3) 40-50, 4) 50-70, 5) 70-80, 6) 80-95 and 7) 95-100% of player’s individually determined maximum velocity (Vmax). A 40m sprint test measured Vmax using OptaPro S4 10 Hz (catapult, Australia) GPS units to derive IND bands. The same GPS units were worn during matches. GPS outputs analysed were % distance, % time, high intensity efforts (HIEs) over 18.1 km.h-1 / 70% max velocity and repeated high intensity efforts (RHIEs) which consists of three HIEs in 21secs. General linear model (GLM) analysis identified a significant difference in the measurement of % total distance covered, between the ABS and IND methods in all zones for forwards (p<0.05) and backs (p<0.05). This difference was also significant between forwards and backs in zones 1, shown as mean difference ± standard deviation (3.7±0.7%), 6 (1.2±0.4%) and 7 (1.0±0.0%) respectively (p<0.05). Percentage time estimations were significantly different between ABS and IND analysis within forwards in zones 1 (1.7±1.7%), 2 (-2.9±1.3%), 3 (1.9±0.8%), 4 (-1.4±0.8%) and 5 (0.2±0.4%), and within backs in zones 1 (-10±1.5%), 2 (-1.2±1.1%), 3 (1.8±0.9%) and 5 (0.6±0.5%) (p<0.05). The difference between groups was significant in zones 1, 2, 4 and 5 (p<0.05). The number of HIEs was significantly different between forwards and backs in zones 6 (6±2) and 7 (3±2). RHIEs were significantly different between ABS and IND for forwards (1±2, p<0.05) although not between groups. Until more research on the differences in ABS and IND methods is carried out, then neither can be deemed a criterion method. In conclusion, there are significant differences between the ABS and IND methods of GPS analysis of the physical demands of rugby union, which must be considered when used to inform training load and recovery to improve performance and reduce injuries.

Glasgow Psychosis Screening tool for use in adults with Intellectual Disabilities (GPS-ID): development and psychometric properties

Background: Prevalence of psychosis is known to be higher in adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) than in the general adult population. However, there have been no attempts to develop a psychosis screening tool specifically for the adult ID population. The present study describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a new measure, the Glasgow Psychosis Screening tool for use in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities (GPS-ID). Method: An item pool was generated following: 1) focus groups with adults with ID and psychosis, and their carers and/or workers; 2) expert input from clinicians. A draft scale was compiled and refined following expert feedback. The new scale, along with the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales was administered to 20 adults with ID (10 with and 10 without psychosis) and their relative or carers. Results: The GPS-ID total score, self-report subscale and informant rating-subscale differentiated psychosis and non-psychosis groups. The tool had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.91), and a cut-off score ≥4 yielded high sensitivity (90%) and specificity (100%). The method of tool development supports face and content validity. Criterion validity was not supported. Conclusions: Preliminary investigation of the tool’s psychometric properties is positive, although further investigation is required. The tool is accessible to adults with mild to moderate ID and can be completed in 15-30 minutes. The GPS-ID is not a diagnostic tool, therefore any adult exceeding the cut-off score of ≥4 should receive further assessment.

Tackling health inequalities in primary care: an exploration of GPs’ experience at the frontline

In Scotland, life expectancy and health outcomes are strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived areas suffer disproportionately from high levels of premature multimorbidity and mortality. To tackle these inequalities in health, challenges in the most deprived areas must be addressed. One avenue that merits attention is the potential role of general medical practitioners (GPs) in helping to address health inequalities, particularly due to their long-term presence in deprived communities, their role in improving patient and population health, and their potential advocacy role on behalf of their patients. GPs can be seen as what Lipsky calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’ due to their considerable autonomy in the decisions they make surrounding individual patient needs, yet practising under the bureaucratic structure of the NHS. While previous research has examined the applicability of Lipsky’s framework to the role of GPs, there has been very little research exploring how GPs negotiate between the multiple identities in their work, how GPs ‘socially construct’ their patients, how GPs view their potential role as ‘advocate’, and what this means in terms of the contribution of GPs to addressing existing inequalities in health. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the experience and views of 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most deprived practices to understand how they might combat this growing health divide via the mitigation (and potential prevention) of existing health inequalities. Participants were selected based on several criteria including practice deprivation level and their individual involvement in the Deep End project, which is an informal network comprising the 100 most deprived general practices in Scotland. The research focused on understanding GPs’ perceptions of their work including its broader implications, within their practice, the communities within which they practise, and the health system as a whole. The concept of street-level bureaucracy proved to be useful in understanding GPs’ frontline work and how they negotiate dilemmas. However, this research demonstrated the need to look beyond Lipsky’s framework in order to understand how GPs reconcile their multiple identities, including advocate and manager. As a result, the term ‘street-level professional’ is offered to capture more fully the multiple identities which GPs inhabit and to explain how GPs’ elite status positions them to engage in political and policy advocacy. This study also provides evidence that GPs’ social constructions of patients are linked not only to how GPs conceptualise the causes of health inequalities, but also to how they view their role in tackling them. In line with this, the interviews established that many GPs felt they could make a difference through advocacy efforts at individual, community and policy/political levels. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the importance of practitioner-led groups—such as the Deep End project—in supporting GPs’ efforts and providing a platform for their advocacy. Within this study, a range of GPs’ views have been explored based on the sample. While it is unclear how common these views are amongst GPs in general, the study revealed that there is considerable scope for ‘political GPs’ who choose to exercise discretion in their communities and beyond. Consequently, GPs working in deprived areas should be encouraged to use their professional status and political clout not only to strengthen local communities, but also to advocate for policy change that might potentially affect the degree of disadvantage of their patients, and levels of social and health inequalities more generally.