Injury risk increases minimally over a large range of changes in activity level in children
Authors:
Chinchin Wang,
Tyrel Stokes,
jorge Trejo Vargas,
Russell Steele,
Niels Wedderkopp,
Ian Shrier
Abstract:
Background: Limited research exists on the association between changes in physical activity levels and injury in children. Objective: To assess how well different variations of the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR), a measure of change in activity, predict injury in children. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from 1670 Danish schoolchildren measured over 5.5 years (2008…
▽ More
Background: Limited research exists on the association between changes in physical activity levels and injury in children. Objective: To assess how well different variations of the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR), a measure of change in activity, predict injury in children. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from 1670 Danish schoolchildren measured over 5.5 years (2008 to 2014). Coupled 4-week, uncoupled 4-week, and uncoupled 5-week ACWRs were calculated using activity frequency in the past week as the acute load (numerator), and average weekly activity frequency in the past 4 or 5 weeks as the chronic load (denominator). We modelled the relationship between different ACWR variations and injury using generalized linear and generalized additive models, with and without accounting for repeated measures. Results: The prognostic relationship between the ACWR and injury risk was best represented using a generalized additive mixed model for the uncoupled 5-week ACWR. It predicted an injury risk of ~3% for ACWRs between 0.8 (activity level decreased by 20%) and 1.5 (activity level increased by 50%). When activity decreased by more than 20% (ACWR< 0.8), injury risk was lower (minimum of 1.5% at ACWR=0). When activity increased by more than 50% (ACWR > 1.5), injury risk was higher (maximum of 6% at ACWR = 5). Girls were at significantly higher risk of injury than boys. Conclusion: Increases in physical activity in children are associated with much lower injury risks compared to previous results in adults.
△ Less
Submitted 21 January, 2021; v1 submitted 6 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
Implementing multiple imputation for missing data in longitudinal studies when models are not feasible: A tutorial on the random hot deck approach
Authors:
Chinchin Wang,
Tyrel Stokes,
Russell Steele,
Niels Wedderkopp,
Ian Shrier
Abstract:
Objective: Researchers often use model-based multiple imputation to handle missing at random data to minimize bias while making the best use of all available data. However, there are sometimes constraints within the data that make model-based imputation difficult and may result in implausible values. In these contexts, we describe how to use random hot deck imputation to allow for plausible multip…
▽ More
Objective: Researchers often use model-based multiple imputation to handle missing at random data to minimize bias while making the best use of all available data. However, there are sometimes constraints within the data that make model-based imputation difficult and may result in implausible values. In these contexts, we describe how to use random hot deck imputation to allow for plausible multiple imputation in longitudinal studies.
Study Design and Setting: We illustrate random hot deck multiple imputation using The Childhood Health, Activity, and Motor Performance School Study Denmark (CHAMPS-DK), a prospective cohort study that measured weekly sports participation for 1700 Danish schoolchildren. We matched records with missing data to several observed records, generated probabilities for matched records using observed data, and sampled from these records based on the probability of each occurring. Because imputed values are generated randomly, multiple complete datasets can be created and analyzed similar to model-based multiple imputation.
Conclusion: Multiple imputation using random hot deck imputation is an alternative method when model-based approaches are infeasible, specifically where there are constraints within and between covariates.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2020; v1 submitted 14 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
