Welcome to Research Commons
Research Commons is the University of Waikato's open access research repository, housing research publications and theses produced by the University's staff and students.
Recent Submissions
Item How do road runners select their shoes? A systematic review(Journal Article, Taylor & Francis, 2023)Running shoes are often considered essential to participate in running. Runners may look for recommendations from friends, specialty running stores, and healthcare professionals when selecting shoes. Despite the existence of shoe prescription guidelines, these recommendations are often not evidence-based or designed with runners’ preferences in mind. This review aims to synthesize original research that identifies how road runners select running shoes. Following PROSPERO registration (CRD42021242523), the PubMed®, Scopus®, Web of Science®, and SPORTDiscus™ electronic databases were systematically searched in March 2021, and monitored until 1 February 2022. Original research that identified factors influencing running shoe selection in road runners published in English were included. Data were qualitatively synthesized. Seven studies representing 1947 road runners were included, and conducted either online, in laboratories, or via interview. Forty influencing factors were identified and thematically sub-grouped into five categories: subjective, shoe-specific characteristics, market features, peer evaluation, and runner characteristics. Comfort, cushioning, fit, and price were cited most frequently as influential factors in road runners’ footwear selection. Most of the studies reviewed were not specifically designed to address the research question of this review. Lack of consistent definitions and varying research methods are found across studies. There is limited research targeting the factors that influence running shoe selection. Comfort and cushioning appear to be the most important factors in shoe selection, although the relationship between both variables may confound their individual importance. Runners also consider fit, price, and several other factors when selecting shoes. Shoe choice remains relatively unexplored, with no running shoe selection study conducted in store.Item Validity, reliability, and normative data on calf muscle function in rugby union players from the Calf Raise application(Journal Article, Taylor & Francis, 2022)We examined the validity and reliability of biomechanical outcomes extracted using the Calf Raise application of three calf muscle tests. We then established normative calf muscle function values for male rugby union players accounting for rugby-related factors (position, level) alone and together with clinical factors (age, leg dominance, BMI, previous injury). In total, 120 athletes performed three single-leg calf muscle tests. Twenty athletes participated in application validation; 18 in test–retest reliability; and all in establishing normative equations. Validity of application outcomes against 3D motion and force plate data was good-to-excellent (CV ≤ 6.6%, ICC ≥0.84). Test–retest reliability was good across outcomes following familiarisation (CV < 10%, ICC ≥0.83). Forwards produced superior power than backs during the bodyweight (59 W, p = 0.007) and weighted (73 W, p < 0.001) power tests. Playing level influenced power outcomes (p < 0.009). Super Rugby players were more powerful than Club (both power tests), Provincial (both power tests), and International (bodyweight power). Backs completed more repetitions (3 repetitions, p = 0.001) and positive displacement (30 cm, p = 0.001) than forwards during endurance testing. When accounting for clinical factors; BMI, age, and previous injury explained some of the differences observed between positions and levels. This study provides initial benchmark values of calf muscle function in rugby union.Item Effect of footwear versus barefoot on double-leg jump-landing and jump height measures: A randomized cross-over study(Journal Article, International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2023)Background: Assessing individuals in their own athletic footwear in clinics is common, but can affect movement, performance, and clinical measures. Purpose: The aim was to compare overall Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores, injury risk categorization, specific LESS errors, and jump heights between habitual athletic footwear and barefoot conditions. Study design: Randomized cross-over laboratory study. Methods: Eighty healthy individuals (55% male) completed the LESS following standard procedures (i.e., land from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of body height and then jump upwards maximally). Participants performed the LESS three times in two randomized conditions: footwear and barefoot. LESS data were extracted from 2D videos to compare group-level mean LESS scores, group-level and individual-level injury risk categorization (5-error threshold), specific landing errors, and jump heights between conditions. Results: LESS scores were significantly greater (0.3 errors, p=0.022) and jump heights were significantly lower (0.6 cm, p=0.029) in footwear than barefoot, but differences were trivial (d = 0.18 and -0.07, respectively) and not clinically meaningful. Although the number of high injury-risk participants was not statistically different at a group level (p=1.000); 27 individuals (33.8%) exhibited a clinically meaningful difference between conditions of one error or more in LESS score, categorization was inconsistent for 16.3% of individuals, and four of the 17 landing errors significantly differed between conditions. Conclusion: At a group level, habitual athletic footwear does not meaningfully influence LESS scores, risk categorization, or jump height. At an individual level, footwear can meaningfully affect LESS scores, risk categorization, and alter landing strategies. Use of consistent protocol and footwear is advised for assessing movement patterns and injury risk from the LESS given the unknown predictive value of this test barefoot. Level of Evidence: Level 3.Item Effect of an overhead goal on landing error scoring system and jump height measures(Journal Article, Elsevier, 2023)Objectives: Compare overall Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores, risk categorisation, specific LESS errors, and double-leg jump-landing jump heights between overhead goal and no goal conditions. Design: Randomised cross-over. Setting: Laboratory. Participants: 76 (51% male). Main outcome measures: Participants landed from a 30-cm box to 50% of their body height and immediately jumped vertically for maximum height. Participants completed three trials under two random-ordered conditions: with and without overhead goal. Group-level mean LESS scores, risk categorisation (5-error threshold), specific landing errors, and jump heights were compared between conditions. Results: Mean LESS scores were greater (0.3 errors, p < 0.001) with the overhead goal, but this small difference was not clinically meaningful. Similarly, although the number of high-risk participants was greater with the overhead goal (p = 0.039), the 9.2% difference was trivial. Participants jumped 2.7 cm higher with the overhead goal (p < 0.001) without affecting the occurrence of any specific LESS errors. Discussion: Performing the LESS with an overhead goal enhances sport specificity and elicits greater vertical jump performances with minimal change in landing errors and injury-risk categorisation. Adding an overhead goal to LESS might enhance its suitability for injury risk screening, although the predictive value of LESS with an overhead goal needs confirmation.Item “It is about enabling Tino Rangatiratanga and Mana Motuhake”: An analysis of submissions on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill 2021 endorsing a Māori health authority(Journal Article, 2025)Indigenous leadership in healthcare is one way for Indigenous peoples to exercise sovereignty over their health. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the establishment of the Māori Health Authority (MHA) was grounded in a decades-long imperative to address Māori health inequities and operationalise te Tiriti o Waitangi within the health system. However, the populist National-led coalition government formed in November 2023 included the abolishment of the MHA in their first 100-day plan and eventually disestablished it in February 2024. This study analysed 155 public group submissions on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill made in 2021 and representing health professionals, iwi, hapū, and community groups. Core themes endorsing the MHA as a statutory entity included honouring te Tiriti, advocating for Māori-led solutions to health inequities, decolonising health systems, and affirming Indigenous rights. The political decision to remove the MHA is antithetical to the explicit endorsement statements made by an overwhelming majority of group submitters with expertise in health organisational structures and healthcare provision. Our study has implications for future local and international research in documenting counter-narratives for Indigenous struggles in health systems.
Communities in Research Commons
Select a community to browse its collections.