Dataset Information

Is a Match Better Than No Match? On the Interaction of Demands and Support During Technological Change.

ABSTRACT: Progressing digitalization and technological changes triggered by COVID-19 lockdowns means for organizations that new technologies need to be implemented in shorter time periods. The implementation of new technologies in the workplace poses various change demands on employees. Organizations try to counteract these effects by providing change support in the form of for example training or participation options. However, to date, it is unclear how change demands develop a detrimental effect and whether change support can buffer this relation due to which working mechanisms, and whether the effectiveness of support measures can be increased by matching them to specific change demands. Based on the integrative framework of social support theory, which draws on the job demands-resources model and self-determination theory, we hypothesize that change demands can be most effectively addressed through matching change support. In three consecutive experimental vignette studies (N ₁ = 89, N ₂ = 134, N ₃ = 138) of dependently employed samples, we analyzed the interaction of change demands and change support on attitude to change, satisfaction with the change process, and behavioral intention to use by manipulating the degree of demand (high vs. low) and provided support (high vs. low) and by conducting moderated mediation analyses, and integrated the results meta-analytically. The results show that change demands have a detrimental effect on technology implementation outcomes. In one of the three studies we confirmed a moderating effect of change support. The relation was mediated by perceived frustration, but the mediating effect of psychological need satisfaction was inconclusive. Based on our results, we discuss that the research on matching support requires the evaluation of the personal relevance of the support receiver to increase the chance of achieving a match.

SUBMITTER: Schlicher KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9261962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) Member States passed a World Health Assembly resolution that identified the following five priority areas for research and pilot projects on climate change and human health: health vulnerability, health protection, health impacts of mitigation and adaptation policies, decision-support and other tools, and costs of health protection from climate change. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which recently published research corresponds to these priorities, we undertook a scoping review of original research on climate change and human health. Scoping reviews address topics that are too broad for a systematic review and commonly aim to identify research gaps in existing literature. We also assessed recent publication trends for climate change and health research. METHODS: We searched for original quantitative research published from 2008 onward. We included disease burden studies that were specific to climate change and health and included intervention studies that focused on climate change and measured health outcomes. We used MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and extracted data on research priority areas, geographic regions, health fields, and equity (systematic differences between advantaged and disadvantaged social groups). DISCUSSION: We identified 40 eligible studies. Compared with other health topics, the number of climate change publications has grown rapidly, with a larger proportion of reviews or editorials. Recent original research addressed four of the five priority areas identified by the WHO Member States, but we found no eligible studies of health adaptation interventions, and most of the studies focused on high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Climate change and health is a rapidly growing area of research, but quantitative studies remain rare. Among recently published studies, we found gaps in adaptation research and a deficit of studies in most developing regions. Funders and researchers should monitor and respond to research gaps to help ensure that the needs of policymakers are met.

Project description:AimThe purpose of the study was: (i) to analyze the relationships of physiological and locomotor demands between small-sided games (3v3 and 5v5) and official matches (11v11); (ii) to analyze the relationships between small-sided games demands and the physical fitness of youth soccer players.MethodsThe observational study lasted three weeks. In the first week participants performed the 5v5 (50 × 31 and 40 × 25 m) repeatedly over four days. In the third week they repeatedly performed the 3v3 (39 × 24 and 32 × 19 m) over four consecutive days. Twenty youth soccer players (age: 16.8 ± 0.41) were tested twice for their final velocity at 30-15 Intermittent Fitness test (VIFT), peak speed attained at 30-m sprint test (peak speed), and anaerobic speed reserve (ASR). The heart rate responses and locomotor demands were monitored in the SSGs (3v3 and 5v5) and matches (11v11) occurring once a week. The Polar Team Pro was used as the instrument to monitor heart rate and locomotor demands. Three official matches were also monitored during the period.ResultsResults revealed no significant correlations (p > 0.05) between small-sided games and match physiological or locomotor demands. However, VIFT and ASR were significantly correlated with distance covered at 5v5 (r = 0.483; p = 0.031; and r = - 0.474; p = 0.035, respectively), average speed (r = 0.474; p = 0.035; and r = - 0.453; p = 0.045, respectively), while VIFT was also significantly correlated with distance covered at Z2 intensity (r = 0.510; p = 0.022).ConclusionsThe results suggest that the physiological and locomotor demands occurring in small-sided games are significantly different from those occurring in official matches. Thus, physiological and locomotor similarities between small-sided games and official matches are scarce. Considering the second purpose of this study, the results suggest that VIFT and ASR are important physical fitness parameters to modulate the amount of distance covered by the players in 5v5, the average pace, and also the distance covered at high intensities.

Project description:BackgroundRugby league is a collision sport, where players are expected to be physically competent in a range of areas, including aerobic fitness, strength, speed and power. Several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of rugby league match-play, but these studies often have relatively small sample sizes based on one or two clubs, which makes generalisation of the findings difficult. Therefore, the aim of this review was to synthesise studies that investigated the physical demands of professional rugby league match-play.MethodsSPORTDiscus, CINAHL, MEDLINE (EBSCO) and Embase (EBSCO) databases were systematically searched from inception until October 2018. Articles were included if they (1) recruited professional rugby league athletes aged ≥ 18 years and (2) provided at least one match-play relevant variable (including playing time, total and relative distance, repeat high-intensity efforts (RHIE), efforts per RHIE, accelerations and decelerations, total and relative collisions). Meta-analyses were used to provide pooled estimates ± 95% confidence intervals.ResultsA total of 30 studies were included. Pooled estimates indicated that, compared to adjustables and backs, forwards have less playing time (- 17.2 ± 5.6 and - 25.6 ± 5.8 min, respectively), cover less 'slow-speed' (- 2230 ± 735 and - 1348 ± 655 m, respectively) and 'high-speed' distance (- 139 ± 108 and - 229 ± 101 m, respectively), but complete more relative RHIEs (+ 0.05 ± 0.05 and + 0.08 ± 0.04 per minute, respectively), and total (+ 12.0 ± 8.1 and + 12.8 ± 7.2 collisions, respectively) and relative collisions (+ 0.32 ± 0.22 and + 0.41 ± 0.22 collisions per minute, respectively). Notably, when the distance was expressed relative to playing time, forwards were not different from adjustables and backs in slow-speed (P ≥ 0.295) and high-speed (P ≥ 0.889) relative distance. The adjustables and backs subgroups were similar in most variables, except playing time (shorter for adjustables, - 8.5 ± 6.2 min), slow-speed distance (greater for adjustables, + 882 ± 763 m) and total relative distance (greater for adjustables, + 11.3 ± 5.2 m·min-1). There were no significant differences between positional groups for efforts per RHIE, accelerations and decelerations (P ≥ 0.745).ConclusionsThese results indicate the unique physical demands of each playing position and should be considered by strength and conditioning and tactical coaches when planning for professional rugby league performance. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/83tq2/.

Dataset Information

Is a Match Better Than No Match? On the Interaction of Demands and Support During Technological Change.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets