Controlled ecological evaluation of an implemented exercise-training programme to prevent lower limb injuries in sport : Population-level trends in hospital-treated injuries
- Finch, Caroline, Gray, Shannon, Akram, Muhammad, Donaldson, Alex, Lloyd, David, Cook, Jill
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Gray, Shannon , Akram, Muhammad , Donaldson, Alex , Lloyd, David , Cook, Jill
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 8 (2019), p. 487-492
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective Exercise-training programmes have reduced lower limb injuries in trials, but their population-level effectiveness has not been reported in implementation trials. This study aimed to demonstrate that routinely collected hospital data can be used to evaluate population-level programme effectiveness. Method A controlled ecological design was used to evaluate the effect of FootyFirst, an exercise-training programme, on the number of hospital-treated lower limb injuries sustained by males aged 16-50 years while participating in community-level Australian Football. FootyFirst was implemented with a € support' (FootyFirst+S) or a € without support' (FootyFirst+NS) in different geographic regions of Victoria, Australia: 22 clubs in region 1: FootyFirst+S in 2012/2013; 25 clubs in region 2: FootyFirst+NS in 2012/2013; 31 clubs region 3: control in 2012, FootyFirst+S in 2013. Interrupted time-series analysis compared injury counts across regions and against trends in the rest of Victoria. Results After 1 year of FootyFirst+S, there was a non-statistically significant decline in the number of lower limb injuries in region 1 (2012) and region 3 (2013); this was not maintained after 2 years in region 1. Compared with before FootyFirst in 2006-2011, injury count changes at the end of 2013 were: region 1: 20.0% reduction (after 2 years support); region 2: 21.5% increase (after 2 years without support); region 3: 21.8% increase (after first year no programme, second year programme with support); rest of Victoria: 12.6% increase. Conclusion Ecological analyses using routinely collected hospital data show promise as the basis of population-level programme evaluation. The implementation and sustainability of sports injury prevention programmes at the population-level remains challenging.
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Gray, Shannon , Akram, Muhammad , Donaldson, Alex , Lloyd, David , Cook, Jill
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 8 (2019), p. 487-492
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective Exercise-training programmes have reduced lower limb injuries in trials, but their population-level effectiveness has not been reported in implementation trials. This study aimed to demonstrate that routinely collected hospital data can be used to evaluate population-level programme effectiveness. Method A controlled ecological design was used to evaluate the effect of FootyFirst, an exercise-training programme, on the number of hospital-treated lower limb injuries sustained by males aged 16-50 years while participating in community-level Australian Football. FootyFirst was implemented with a € support' (FootyFirst+S) or a € without support' (FootyFirst+NS) in different geographic regions of Victoria, Australia: 22 clubs in region 1: FootyFirst+S in 2012/2013; 25 clubs in region 2: FootyFirst+NS in 2012/2013; 31 clubs region 3: control in 2012, FootyFirst+S in 2013. Interrupted time-series analysis compared injury counts across regions and against trends in the rest of Victoria. Results After 1 year of FootyFirst+S, there was a non-statistically significant decline in the number of lower limb injuries in region 1 (2012) and region 3 (2013); this was not maintained after 2 years in region 1. Compared with before FootyFirst in 2006-2011, injury count changes at the end of 2013 were: region 1: 20.0% reduction (after 2 years support); region 2: 21.5% increase (after 2 years without support); region 3: 21.8% increase (after first year no programme, second year programme with support); rest of Victoria: 12.6% increase. Conclusion Ecological analyses using routinely collected hospital data show promise as the basis of population-level programme evaluation. The implementation and sustainability of sports injury prevention programmes at the population-level remains challenging.
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.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »