Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by decreased bone strength, which leads to an increased risk of developing fractures. Interestingly, this metabolic disorder is often related to sarcopenia, defined as decreased muscle mass, strength, and function. These two conditions appear to be closely connected, leading to a clinical condition named osteosarcopenia (OS). Aging may explain the link between muscle and bone loss through genetic, mechanical, endocrine, and nutritional factors. Further, aging increases the amount of adipose tissue, often due to sedentary behavior and unbalanced nutritional pattern, leading to a clinical condition defined as osteosarcopenic obesity, characterized by concurrent obesity, sarcopenia, and osteoporosis, where each condition exacerbates the others. Moreover, sarcopenia leads to decreased physical (PA) activity, worsening skeletal homeostasis, and creating a vicious cycle, which increases falls, fracture risk, and disability. This review underscores the importance of a systemic approach, focusing on nutritional therapy integrated with PA and, eventually, pharmacological interventions to efficiently manage (OS).

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak led to an inevitable and drastic transition to online training systems. This study aimed to analyze the differences between live-streaming and pre-recorded training modalities in rhythmic gymnastics (RG) with coaches and gymnasts of different technical levels. A total of 238 coaches and 277 athletes affiliated with the Italian Gymnastics Federation (FGI) participated in the study. The data collection tool was a self-collected questionnaire structured in three sections: participant’s information, characteristics of live-streaming training, and characteristics of pre-recorded training. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was used for each numeric variable. A Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for each categorical variable. For the athletes, training frequency, motivation, and efficacy were significantly higher (p < 0.05) with live streaming (3.7 ± 1.5 day/week, 3.8 ± 0.9 score and 3.8 ± 0.8 score, respectively) than with a pre-recorded modality (2.2 ± 1.7 day/week, 3.1 ± 1.2 score and 3.7 ± 0.9 score, respectively), while for coaches, significant differences (p < 0.005) were found between the two modalities only for training frequency (live streaming, 3.6 ± 1.8 days/week vs. pre-recorded, 2.1 ± 1.7 days/week). The adherence (number of No:Yes) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for the live-streaming modality than for the pre-recorded modality in gold athletes (1:74 vs. 14:61, respectively), silver athletes (12:190 vs. 28:174, respectively), and gold coaches (3:63 vs. 11:55, respectively), but it was not for silver coaches. Physical preparation was performed significantly (p < 0.005) more often (number of No:Yes) for live streaming than for the pre-recorded modality by gold athletes (9:66 vs. 34:41, respectively), silver athletes (25:177 vs. 77:125, respectively), gold coaches (8:58 vs. 37:29), and silver coaches (33:139 vs. 85:87, respectively). Free body technical preparation was performed significantly (p < 0.005) more often (number of No:Yes) for live streaming than for the pre-recorded modality by gold athletes (15:60 vs. 39:36, respectively), silver athletes (84:118 vs. 121:81, respectively), gold coaches (10:56 vs. 38:28), and silver coaches (60:112 vs. 105:67, respectively), while no differences were found for silver athletes’ and coaches’ technical preparations for apparatus training between the two modalities. In conclusion, live streaming had greater positive effects on RG training during home confinement. However, pre-recorded training could be more effective for some types of training, depending on the technical level of the athletes.

The purpose of this study was to validate the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire in Italian language (VEQ-I). The translation and cultural adaptation of the VEQ-I was conducted using the forward-backward translation method. VEQ-I eighteen items correspond to the six-factors structure of the original version. The construct validity was verified by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (CFI = 0.960; TLI = 0.943; RMSEA = 0.039; and SRMR = 0.040). The eighteen items were well distributed in six subscales and the six-factors structure of the questionnaire was supported. Internal Consistency value of the questionnaire was investigated for each subscale of the VEQ-I. Cronbach’s alpha and Omega values of theReasons,Postponing Training,Unrelated Thoughts,Self-Confidence,Approval from OthersandCoping with Failuresubscales were 0.76 (α) and 0.76 (ω), 0.76 (α) and 0.76 (ω), 0.87 (α) and 0.88 (ω), 0.85 (α) and 0.85 (ω), 0.70 (α) and 0.72 (ω) and 0.74 (α) and 0.74 (ω), respectively. They were acceptable in all the six subscales. The concurrent validity was assessed using the correlation among the subscales of VEQ-I measures and those contained in two questionnaires: Psychobiosocial States in Physical Education (PBS-SPE) and Exercise Motivations Inventory (EMI-2).

Background: The reported data on African universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) practices tend to be quite scarce, despite the developments in hearing screening the last two decades. The objective of this systematic review was (a) to identify the most recent (in a 20-year span) literature information about NHS/UNHS programs in Africa and (b) to provide data on the procedures used to assess the population, the intervention policies, and on the estimated prevalence of congenital hearing loss with an emphasis on bilateral hearing loss cases. Methods: Queries were conducted via the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for the time window of 2004–2024. The mesh terms used were “OAE”, “universal neonatal hearing screening”, “congenital hearing loss”, “well babies”, and “Africa”. Only research articles and review papers were considered as good candidates. The standard English language filter was not used, to identify information from non-English-speaking scientific communities and groups. Results: Data from 15 papers were considered, reflecting the neonatal hearing practices of nine African states. No country-wide NHS programs were reported. The various screening realities are implemented within big urban centers, leaving the residents of rural areas unassisted. For the latter, proposals based on tele-medicine protocols have been suggested. The data on HL prevalence are also incomplete, but the available data refer to rates from 3 to 360 subjects per 1000. These data cannot be taken at face value but within the small sample size context in which they were acquired. Regarding the causes of HL, very few data have been reported; consanguinity is the most attributed factor, at least in the Sub-Saharan African states. For the majority of the programs, no data were reported on hearing loss prevalence/incidence or on any strategies to restore hearing. Conclusions: The information on the African neonatal hearing screening are quite scarce, and it is an urgent need to convince audiologists from the African localized programs to publish their hearing screening data.

Background: The objectives of this scoping review were (a) to identify the most recent (in a 21-year span) literature information about hearing intervention programs in Africa and (b) to provide data on the intervention practices, policies and the factors prohibiting the larger diffusion of the hearing technologies in the African states. Methods: Queries were conducted via the PubMed and Scopus databases for the time window from 2005 to 2025. The mesh terms used were “hearing aids”, “cochlear implants”, and “hearing intervention Africa”. Only research articles and review papers were considered as good candidates. The standard English language filter was not used, so as to also identify information from non-English-speaking scientific communities and groups. Results: Data from eight papers were considered, reflecting the hearing intervention practices of six African states. These reports, although integral in themselves, examine different aspects of children’s hearing identification and grouping the information was not entirely feasible. It is assumed that since there are no organized or centralized NHS programs in the African states, the primary driver of hearing identification appears to be parental vigilance. The cochlear implant intervention is not very diffused mainly due to complex economic factors of the weak African economies. Anecdotal data refer to cultural bias versus hearing intervention technology, but this information needs further elucidation. Conclusions: The information on the African programs on hearing intervention policies is quite scarce, as in the case of African NHS. Within this context, it is very important to convince audiologists and ENTs from the African localized programs to publish their data in mainstream channels so that new information can be assessed.

Background: The reported data on European universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) practices tend to be scarce, despite the fact that the European Union project, EUScreen, collected unofficial data from 38 collaborating European institutions. The objectives of this systematic review were as follows: (a) to identify the most recent (in a 20-year span) literature information about UNHS programs in Europe and (b) to provide data on the procedures used to assess the population, the intervention policies, and on the estimated prevalence of congenital hearing loss with emphasis on the bilateral hearing loss cases. Methods: Queries were conducted via the Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases for the time period of 2004–2024. The Mesh terms used were “OAE”, “Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening”, “congenital hearing loss” and “well babies”. Only research articles and review papers of European origin were considered good candidates. The standard English language filter was not used, in order to identify information from non-English-speaking scientific communities and groups. Results: Very few data and reports were identified in the literature search. Eleven manuscripts were identified corresponding to eight UNHS programs. Except in Poland, most of the data refer to regional and not national programs. The screening coverage estimates of all programs exceed 90%; infants were mostly assessed by a three-stage protocol (TEOAE + TEOAE + AABR), followed by a clinical ABR test. The average prevalence (i.e., from well babies AND NICU infants) of bilateral hearing loss ranged from 0.5 to 20.94 per 1000 (Zurich sample). Infants presenting unilateral or bilateral hearing losses were first rehabilitated by hearing aids and consequently (>15 mo) by cochlear implants. Conclusions: Even though UNHS programs are well-established clinical practices in the European States, the amount of information in the literature about these programs is surprising low. The existing data in the timespan 2004–2024 corroborate the international UNHS data in terms of coverage and bilateral hearing loss prevalence, but there is a strong need to supplement the existing information with the latest developments, especially in the area of hearing loss rehabilitation.