Scientific evidence is just the starting point : A generalizable process for developing sports injury prevention interventions
- Donaldson, Alex, Lloyd, David, Gabbe, Belinda, Cook, Jill, Young, Warren, White, Peta, Finch, Caroline
- 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.
- 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.
- Donaldson, Alex, Cook, Jill, Gabbe, Belinda, Lloyd, David, Young, Warren, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Donaldson, Alex , Cook, Jill , Gabbe, Belinda , Lloyd, David , Young, Warren , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine Vol.25, no.3, p.221-229
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: OBJECTIVE: To achieve expert consensus on the content of an exercise training program (known as FootyFirst) to prevent lower-limb injuries. DESIGN: Three-round online Delphi consultation process. SETTING: Community Australian Football (AF). PARTICIPANTS: Members of the Australian Football Leagues' Medical Officers (n = 94), physiotherapists (n = 50), and Sports Science (n = 19) Associations were invited to participate through e-mail. Five people with more general expertise in sports-related lower-limb injury prevention were also invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the level of agreement on the appropriateness of the proposed exercises and progressions for inclusion in FootyFirst. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts who responded to each item agreed and strongly agreed, or disagreed and strongly disagreed, that an exercise or its progressions were appropriate to include in FootyFirst. RESULTS: Fifty-five experts participated in at least 1 Delphi round. In round 1, consensus was achieved that the proposed warm-up (run through and dynamic stretches) and the exercises and progressions for hamstring strength and for balance, landing, and changing direction were appropriate to include in FootyFirst. There was also consensus in round 1 that progressions for hip/core strength should be included in FootyFirst. Consensus was reached in round 2 that the revised groin strength and hip strength exercises should be included in FootyFirst. Consensus was reached for the progression of the groin strength exercises in round 3. CONCLUSIONS: The formal consensus development process has resulted in an evidence-informed, researcher-developed, exercise-based sports injury prevention program that is expert endorsed and specific to the context of AF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lower-limb injuries are common in running, kicking, and contact sports like AF. These injuries are often costly to treat, and many have high rates of recurrence, making them challenging to treat clinically. Reducing these injuries is a high priority for players, teams, and medical staff. Exercise programs provide a method for primary prevention of lower-limb injuries, but they have to be evidence based, have currency with sports practitioners/clinicians, and utility for the context in which they are to be used. However, the comprehensive methods and clinical engagement processes used to develop injury prevention exercise programs have not previously been described in detail. This study describes the results of engaging clinicians and sport scientists in the development of a lower-limb sports injury prevention program for community AF, enabling the development of a program that is both evidence informed and considerate of expert clinical opinion.
When 'just doing it' is not enough: Assessing the fidelity of player performance of an injury prevention exercise program
- Fortington, Lauren, Donaldson, Alex, Lathlean, Tim, Young, Warren, Gabbe, Belinda, Lloyd, David, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Fortington, Lauren , Donaldson, Alex , Lathlean, Tim , Young, Warren , Gabbe, Belinda , Lloyd, David , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol. 18, no. 3 (May 2014 2014), p.272-277
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: To obtain benefits from sports injury prevention programs, players are instructed to perform the exercises as prescribed. We developed an observational checklist to measure the quality of exercise performance by players participating in FootyFirst, a coach-led, exercise-based, lower-limb injury prevention program in community Australian Football (AF). Design: Observational. Methods: The essential performance criteria for each FootyFirst exercise were described in terms of the technique, volume and intensity required to perform each exercise. An observational checklist was developed to evaluate each criterion through direct visual observation of players at training. The checklist was trialled by two independent raters who observed the same 70 players completing the exercises at eight clubs. Agreement between observers was assessed by Kappa-statistics. Exercise fidelity was defined as the proportion of observed players who performed all aspects of their exercises correctly. Results: The raters agreed on 61/70 observations (87%) (Kappa = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55; 0.89). Of the observations with agreed ratings, 41 (67%) players were judged as performing the exercises as prescribed. Conclusions: The observational checklist demonstrated high inter-rater reliability. Many players observed did not perform the exercises as prescribed, raising concern as to whether they would be receiving anticipated program benefits. Where quality of exercise performance is important, evaluation and reporting of program fidelity should include direct observations of participants.
- Authors: Fortington, Lauren , Donaldson, Alex , Lathlean, Tim , Young, Warren , Gabbe, Belinda , Lloyd, David , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol. 18, no. 3 (May 2014 2014), p.272-277
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: To obtain benefits from sports injury prevention programs, players are instructed to perform the exercises as prescribed. We developed an observational checklist to measure the quality of exercise performance by players participating in FootyFirst, a coach-led, exercise-based, lower-limb injury prevention program in community Australian Football (AF). Design: Observational. Methods: The essential performance criteria for each FootyFirst exercise were described in terms of the technique, volume and intensity required to perform each exercise. An observational checklist was developed to evaluate each criterion through direct visual observation of players at training. The checklist was trialled by two independent raters who observed the same 70 players completing the exercises at eight clubs. Agreement between observers was assessed by Kappa-statistics. Exercise fidelity was defined as the proportion of observed players who performed all aspects of their exercises correctly. Results: The raters agreed on 61/70 observations (87%) (Kappa = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55; 0.89). Of the observations with agreed ratings, 41 (67%) players were judged as performing the exercises as prescribed. Conclusions: The observational checklist demonstrated high inter-rater reliability. Many players observed did not perform the exercises as prescribed, raising concern as to whether they would be receiving anticipated program benefits. Where quality of exercise performance is important, evaluation and reporting of program fidelity should include direct observations of participants.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »