Scientific evidence is just the starting point : A generalizable process for developing sports injury prevention interventions
- Authors: Donaldson, Alex , Lloyd, David , Gabbe, Belinda , Cook, Jill , Young, Warren , White, Peta , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2016
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol. 5, no. 3 (2016), p. 334-341
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: The 2 most cited sports injury prevention research frameworks incorporate intervention development, yet little guidance is available in the sports science literature on how to undertake this complex process. This paper presents a generalizable process for developing implementable sports injury prevention interventions, including a case study applying the process to develop a lower limb injury prevention exercise training program (FootyFirst) for community Australian football. Methods: The intervention development process is underpinned by 2 complementary premises: (1) that evidence-based practice integrates the best available scientific evidence with practitioner expertise and end user values and (2) that research evidence alone is insufficient to develop implementable interventions. Results: The generalizable 6-step intervention development process involves (1) compiling research evidence, clinical experience, and knowledge of the implementation context; (2) consulting with experts; (3) engaging with end users; (4) testing the intervention; (5) using theory; and (6) obtaining feedback from early implementers. Following each step, intervention content and presentation should be revised to ensure that the final intervention includes evidence-informed content that is likely to be adopted, properly implemented, and sustained over time by the targeted intervention deliverers. For FootyFirst, this process involved establishing a multidisciplinary intervention development group, conducting 2 targeted literature reviews, undertaking an online expert consensus process, conducting focus groups with program end users, testing the program multiple times in different contexts, and obtaining feedback from early implementers of the program. Conclusion: This systematic yet pragmatic and iterative intervention development process is potentially applicable to any injury prevention topic across all sports settings and levels. It will guide researchers wishing to undertake intervention development.
- Description: Background: The 2 most cited sports injury prevention research frameworks incorporate intervention development, yet little guidance is available in the sports science literature on how to undertake this complex process. This paper presents a generalizable process for developing implementable sports injury prevention interventions, including a case study applying the process to develop a lower limb injury prevention exercise training program (FootyFirst) for community Australian football. Methods: The intervention development process is underpinned by 2 complementary premises: (1) that evidence-based practice integrates the best available scientific evidence with practitioner expertise and end user values and (2) that research evidence alone is insufficient to develop implementable interventions. Results: The generalizable 6-step intervention development process involves (1) compiling research evidence, clinical experience, and knowledge of the implementation context; (2) consulting with experts; (3) engaging with end users; (4) testing the intervention; (5) using theory; and (6) obtaining feedback from early implementers. Following each step, intervention content and presentation should be revised to ensure that the final intervention includes evidence-informed content that is likely to be adopted, properly implemented, and sustained over time by the targeted intervention deliverers. For FootyFirst, this process involved establishing a multidisciplinary intervention development group, conducting 2 targeted literature reviews, undertaking an online expert consensus process, conducting focus groups with program end users, testing the program multiple times in different contexts, and obtaining feedback from early implementers of the program. Conclusion: This systematic yet pragmatic and iterative intervention development process is potentially applicable to any injury prevention topic across all sports settings and levels. It will guide researchers wishing to undertake intervention development. (C) 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.
The evolution of multiagency partnerships for safety over the course of research engagement : Experiences from the NoGAPS project
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Donaldson, Alex , Gabbe, Belinda , Muhammad, Akram , Shee, Anna Wong , Lloyd, David , Cook, Jill
- Date: 2016
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Injury Prevention Vol. 22, no. 6 (2016), p. 386-391
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective Implementation of effective population-level injury prevention interventions requires broad multiagency partnerships. Different stakeholders address this from varying perspectives, and potential conflicts in priorities need to be addressed for such partnerships to be effective. The researcher-led National Guidance for Australian football Partnerships and Safety (NoGAPS) project involved the engagement and participation of seven non-academic partners, including government health promotion and safety agencies; peak sports professional and advocacy bodies and health insurance organisations. Design The partnership's ongoing development was assessed by each partner completing the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation Partnership Analysis Tool (VPAT) annually over 2011-2015. Changes in VPAT scores were compared through repeated measures analysis of variance. Results Overall, mean total VPAT scores increased significantly over the 5-year period (125.1-141.2; F-5,F-30=4.61, p=0.003), showing a significant improvement in how the partnership was functioning over time. This was largely driven by significant increases in several VPAT domains: determining the need for a partnership' (F-5,F-30=4.15, p=0.006), making sure the partnership works' (F-5,F-30=2.59, p=0.046), planning collaborative action' (F-5,F-30=5.13, p=0.002) and minimising the barriers to the partnership' (F-5,F-30=6.66, p<0.001). Conclusion This is the first study to assess the functioning of a multiagency partnership to address sport injury prevention implementation. For NoGAPS, the engagement of stakeholders from the outset facilitated the development of new and/or stronger links between non-academic partners. Partners shared the common goal of ensuring the real-world uptake of interventions and research evidence-informed recommendations. Effective multiagency partnerships have the potential to influence the implementation of policies and practices beyond the life of a research project.
Priorities for investment in injury prevention in community Australian football
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Gabbe, Belinda , White, Peta , Lloyd, David , Twomey, Dara , Donaldson, Alex , Elliott, Bruce , Cook, Jill
- Date: 2013
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Clinical journal of sport medicine Vol. 23, no. 6 (November 2013 2013), p. 430-438
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective:High-quality sport-specific information about the nature, type, cause, and frequency of injuries is needed to set injury prevention priorities. This article describes the type, nature, and mechanism of injuries in community Australian Football (community AF) players, as collected through field-based monitoring of injury in teams of players.Data Sources:Compilation of published prospectively collected injury data from 3 studies in junior community AF (1202 injuries in 1950+ players) and 3 studies in adult community AF (1765 injuries in 2265 players). This was supplemented with previously unpublished data from the most recent adult community AF injury cohort study conducted in 2007 to 2008. Injuries were ranked according to most common body regions, nature of injury, and mechanism.Main Results:In all players, lower limb injuries were the most frequent injury in community AF and were generally muscle strains, joint sprains, and superficial injuries. These injuries most commonly resulted from incidental contact with other players, or from overexertion. Upper limb injuries were less common but included fractures, strains, and sprains that were generally caused by incidental contact between players and the result of players falling to the ground.Conclusions:Lower limb injuries are common in community AF and could have an adverse impact on sustained participation in the game. Based on what is known about their mechanisms, it is likely that a high proportion of lower limb injuries could be prevented and they should therefore be a priority for injury prevention in community AF.