AV&R (Canada)

Men diagnosed with cancer are underrepresented in existing supportive care programming and related research, with preliminary indications that men face unique challenges in accessing and engaging with such services. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators related to the supportive care service access and use among men diagnosed with cancer. From March to May 2021, thirty-one Quebec men (Mage = 52.7, range:(26-82 years) diagnosed with various cancer types were recruited to take part in individual telephone interviews (n = 14) or online focus groups (n = 17) addressing experiences of cancer supportive care services. Content analysis of qualitative data was performed. Barriers and facilitators to men's supportive care access and use were grouped into four categories: (1) alignment between services and men's needs and preferences; (2) delivery of services in an accessible, inclusive, and responsive way; (3) communication and promotion of services in ways that are acceptable, appealing, and attractive to men; and (4) social norms and perceptions of gender and masculinity affecting men's perceptions of and engagement with services. Barriers and facilitators influencing access and use of supportive care services in men are numerous and diverse. These findings may inform the development of new and the adaptation of current supportive care strategies to better address men's needs and preferences after a cancer diagnosis. Increased adequacy of services tailored to men's needs and preferences, with an emphasis on supporting men to take an active role in their recovery, could improve access and adherence to care. Services adopting a more integrated, patient-centered, and holistic approach to service delivery could positively impact the cancer care trajectory and health outcomes of men. Larger systemic changes may be needed to support men in engaging in currently existing activities and services.

Powerlifting measures maximal strength through the squat, the bench press and the deadlift. The total of the heaviest weight lifted in each of these events determines the strongest powerlifter per weight class. PURPOSE: To present the relationships between body composition and maximal strength in classic powerlifters in order to update previously published results with the completion of a second data collection. METHODS: Thirty classic powerlifters (12 females and 18 males, age 29.5 ± 9.0 years, bodyweight 83.7 ± 20.2 kg, height 1.69 ± 0.08 m, Squat 181.1 ± 60.2 kg, Bench 112.7 ± 43.6 kg, Deadlift 206.9 ± 62.2 kg) body composition was analyzed by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA Prodigy Advance, model #8743, GE Healthcare, Madison, Wisconsin USA). Most of the Absolute Maximal Strength (AMS) measures came from the 2018 or 2019 Quebec Powerlifting Federation Provincial Championship with powerlifters scanned 44.6 ± 25.4 days after their powerlifting meet. Relative Maximal Strength (RMS) was calculated with the Wilks formula; validated for both men and women and designed to compare both sexes. Subject’s characteristics are presented as means and standard deviations. Correlations between body composition and maximal strength measures were calculated using a 2-tailed Pearson correlation analysis and were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. RESULTS: Results present multiple significant correlations (p < 0.05) between various body composition measurements and AMS and RMS. Total in kg (AMS) was significantly correlated (p < 0.01) with Years of Experience in Resistance Training (r = 0.49), Years of Experience in Powerlifting (YEP, r = 0.48), Bodyweight (r = 0.69), Height (r = 0.69), Body Mass Index (BMI, r = 0.52), Lean Body Tissue (LBT, r = 0.90), Relative LBT (LBT/Height, r = 0.92), Bone Mineral Content (BMC, r = 0.84) and Bone Mineral Density (BMD, r = 0.70). Total in Wilks points (RMS) was significantly correlated with YEP (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), LBT, r = 0.46, p < 0.05), Relative LBT (r = 0.50, p < 0.01), BMC (r = 0.45 p < 0.05) and BMD (r = 0.50 p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The present results update our previously published results (year 1, n = 15) and help further understand the relationships between body composition variables and maximal strength.