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.
Priorities for investment in injury prevention in community Australian football
- Finch, Caroline, Gabbe, Belinda, White, Peta, Lloyd, David, Twomey, Dara, Donaldson, Alex, Elliott, Bruce, Cook, Jill
- 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.
- 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.
Sports injury prevention: improving the outcomes
- Finch, Caroline, Gabbe, Belinda, Lloyd, David, Cook, Jill, Young, Warren, Nicholson, Matthew, Seward, Hugh, Donaldson, Alex, Doyle, Tim, White, Peta
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Gabbe, Belinda , Lloyd, David , Cook, Jill , Young, Warren , Nicholson, Matthew , Seward, Hugh , Donaldson, Alex , Doyle, Tim , White, Peta
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Sport Health Vol. 29, no. 1 (2011), p. 34-37
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: In australia, the public health signifi cance of sports injuries has long been recognised with national and state-specifi c injury data collections demonstrating the magnitude of the population burden of such injuries, including their signifi cant impact on health service delivery and their potential to be associated with socio-demographic health inequalities. Moreover, health-related lifelong physical activity participation will only be sustained in the long-term if it is delivered in a safe way to minimise injury risk.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »