Colin Griffin

Horizontal plyometric exercise tests remain biomechanically underexplored, despite their widespread use to develop acceleration, change of direction, and horizontal force production. The dominant contribution of the ankle–calf complex and high Achilles tendon loading in these tasks provides critical information to guide targeted rehabilitation following lower-limb injury and performance programming. This study aimed to (i) assess test-retest reliability of biomechanical and performance features in a single-leg horizontal plyometric exercise, (ii) investigate joint stiffness (Kjoint) and mechanical outputs and their relationship with rebound distance (RD), horizontal reactive strength index (hRSI), leg (Kleg) and vertical (Kvert) stiffness and (iii) determine how many trials are required to capture a representative mean across different variables. Ten males performed the task over two sessions with captured 3D motion and force data. Biomechanical and performance features were then extracted. Good-to-excellent reliability was demonstrated for most biomechanical and performance features. Kankle and contact time each correlated with both Kvert and Kleg. Peak hip joint moment and peak horizontal GRF (hGRF) correlated with RD and hRSI. Joint power and work were highest at the ankle, while joint stiffness was higher at the knee compared to the ankle. The third trial reached a stable correlation with the mean for most variables. This simple, field-deployable test, confirming the dominance of ankle kinetics, offers a practical and reliable method for assessing horizontal reactive strength and lower-limb mechanics. Utilising the mean of three trials, it may provide valuable insights for clinicians and practitioners for return-to-play decision-making following injury, or to optimise performance.

Background: Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common overuse injury in running-related sports where patients experience pain and impaired function which can persist. A graded rehabilitation program has been successful in reducing pain and improving function to enable a return to sport. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a criteria-based rehabilitation program including strength and reactive strength targets, with a previously successful rehabilitation program on changes in pain and function using the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) questionnaire. Secondary aims will be to assess changes in calf strength, reactive strength, and lower limb running and forward hop biomechanics over the course of a 12-week rehabilitation program, and long-term follow-up investigations.Methods: Sixty eligible participants with chronic mid-portion AT who train in running-based sports will be included in this study. They will be randomly assigned to a group that will follow an evidence-based rehabilitation program of daily exercises with progression guided by symptoms or a group performing 3 high-intensity rehabilitation sessions per week with individualised load targets progressing to reactive strength exercises. Testing will take place at baseline, week 6 and 12. Plantar flexor peak torque will be measured using isokinetic dynamometry, reactive strength will be measured using a drop jump and lower limb biomechanical variables will be measured during a single leg forward hurdle hop test and treadmill running using 3D motion analysis. Follow-up interviews will take place at 6, 12 and 24 months after beginning the program which will assess patient participation in sport and possible re-injury.Discussion: This is the first study to propose an individualised criteria-based graded rehabilitation program in patients in with chronic mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy where progression is guided by strength and reactive strength outcome measures. This study will provide a comprehensive assessment of plantar flexor strength, reactive strength and lower limb biomechanical variables in running and forward hopping with the VISA-A questionnaire as the primary outcome measure and long term post-intervention follow-up assessments performed.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov(ID:NCT04384874). Registered retrospectively on April 23rd 2020.

It has long been acknowledged that adult and lifelong educators have exercised little influence over national education policies. This article addresses the issue, with particular reference to the research elements of policy advocacy. Researchers and policy‐makers are distinguished and related as communities of practice and intellectual categories of social function. It is argued that the concept ‘policy‐maker’ is too ambiguous to be of either theoretical or practical use, especially since the focus has shifted over the years away from the advocacy of adult education to the implementation of lifelong learning. Also, the concepts of both ‘policy’ and ‘research’ have undergone significant shifts of meaning, so that traditional ideas of the relation between research and policy are now outdated. We live in an age of public scepticism about the political uses to which research is put, and this also needs to be taken into account in the case of lifelong learning. Thus, the relation between research and the policy process needs to be reconceptualised in a future beyond lifelong learning in order to be meaningful, with the focus much more upon process than outcome. Only in this way could adult and lifelong educators expect to have any influence upon national policies.