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 This was supplemented with previously unpublished data from the most recent adult community AF injury cohort study conducted in 2007 to 2008.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.
Could targeted exercise programmes prevent lower limb injury in community Australian football?
- Andrew, Nadine, Gabbe, Belinda, Cook, Jill, Lloyd, David, Donnelly, Cyril, Nash, Clare, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Andrew, Nadine , Gabbe, Belinda , Cook, Jill , Lloyd, David , Donnelly, Cyril , Nash, Clare , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2013
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Sports Medicine Vol. 43, no. 8 (2013), p. 751-763
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: Australian football is a popular sport in Australia, at both the community and elite levels. It is a high-speed contact sport with a higher incidence of medically treated injuries when compared with most other organized sports. Hamstring injuries, ligament injuries to the knee or ankle, hip/groin injuries and tendinopathies are particularly common and often result in considerable time lost from sport. Consequently, the prevention of lower limb injuries is a priority for both community and elite Australian football organizations. There is considerable literature available on exercise programmes aimed at reducing lower limb injuries in Australian football and other running-related sports. The quality and outcomes of these studies have varied considerably, but indicate that exercise protocols may be an effective means of preventing lower limb injuries. Despite this, there has been limited high-quality and systematic evaluation of these data. Objective: The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the evidence about the benefits of lower limb injury prevention exercise protocols aimed at reducing the most common severe lower limb injuries in Australian football. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and other electronic databases were searched, from January 1990 to December 2010. Papers reporting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies were extracted. Primary outcomes were injury reduction or risk factor identification and/or modification. Secondary outcomes were adherence to any trialled interventions, injury severity and adverse effects such as secondary injuries and muscle soreness. The methodological quality of extracted manuscripts was assessed and results were collated. Results: Forty-seven papers were identified and reviewed of which 18 related to hamstring injury, eight related to knee or ankle ligament injury, five related to tendon injury and four were hip or groin injury related. Another 12 papers targeted general lower limb injuries. Most (n = 27 [57 %]) were observational studies, investigating injury risk factors. Twenty reported the results of intervention trials. Of these, 15 were efficacy trials reporting the effects of an intervention in reducing injury rates, four were biomechanical interventions in which the impact of the intervention on a known injury risk factor was assessed and one reported changes in injury risk factors as well as injury rates. The strength of the evidence base for exercise programmes for lower limb injury prevention was found to be limited, primarily due to the research methods employed, low adherence to interventions by the study participants and a lack of statistical power. Limited evidence obtained from a small number of RCTs suggests that balance and control exercises might be efficacious in preventing ankle ligament injuries and a programme involving a combination of balance and control exercises, eccentric hamstring, plyometrics and strength exercises could be efficacious in preventing all lower limb injuries. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence for exercise programmes as an efficacious lower limb injury prevention strategy is predominantly restricted to studies addressing injury aetiology and mechanisms. The findings of this review highlight the need to develop and test interventions in well designed population-based trials with an emphasis on promoting intervention uptake and adherence and, hence, intervention effectiveness. The results of this review can inform the development of the components of a future lower limb injury prevention exercise protocol for community-level Australian football. © 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Funded by the NHMRC.
- Description: 2003011215
- Authors: Andrew, Nadine , Gabbe, Belinda , Cook, Jill , Lloyd, David , Donnelly, Cyril , Nash, Clare , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2013
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Sports Medicine Vol. 43, no. 8 (2013), p. 751-763
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: Australian football is a popular sport in Australia, at both the community and elite levels. It is a high-speed contact sport with a higher incidence of medically treated injuries when compared with most other organized sports. Hamstring injuries, ligament injuries to the knee or ankle, hip/groin injuries and tendinopathies are particularly common and often result in considerable time lost from sport. Consequently, the prevention of lower limb injuries is a priority for both community and elite Australian football organizations. There is considerable literature available on exercise programmes aimed at reducing lower limb injuries in Australian football and other running-related sports. The quality and outcomes of these studies have varied considerably, but indicate that exercise protocols may be an effective means of preventing lower limb injuries. Despite this, there has been limited high-quality and systematic evaluation of these data. Objective: The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the evidence about the benefits of lower limb injury prevention exercise protocols aimed at reducing the most common severe lower limb injuries in Australian football. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and other electronic databases were searched, from January 1990 to December 2010. Papers reporting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies were extracted. Primary outcomes were injury reduction or risk factor identification and/or modification. Secondary outcomes were adherence to any trialled interventions, injury severity and adverse effects such as secondary injuries and muscle soreness. The methodological quality of extracted manuscripts was assessed and results were collated. Results: Forty-seven papers were identified and reviewed of which 18 related to hamstring injury, eight related to knee or ankle ligament injury, five related to tendon injury and four were hip or groin injury related. Another 12 papers targeted general lower limb injuries. Most (n = 27 [57 %]) were observational studies, investigating injury risk factors. Twenty reported the results of intervention trials. Of these, 15 were efficacy trials reporting the effects of an intervention in reducing injury rates, four were biomechanical interventions in which the impact of the intervention on a known injury risk factor was assessed and one reported changes in injury risk factors as well as injury rates. The strength of the evidence base for exercise programmes for lower limb injury prevention was found to be limited, primarily due to the research methods employed, low adherence to interventions by the study participants and a lack of statistical power. Limited evidence obtained from a small number of RCTs suggests that balance and control exercises might be efficacious in preventing ankle ligament injuries and a programme involving a combination of balance and control exercises, eccentric hamstring, plyometrics and strength exercises could be efficacious in preventing all lower limb injuries. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence for exercise programmes as an efficacious lower limb injury prevention strategy is predominantly restricted to studies addressing injury aetiology and mechanisms. The findings of this review highlight the need to develop and test interventions in well designed population-based trials with an emphasis on promoting intervention uptake and adherence and, hence, intervention effectiveness. The results of this review can inform the development of the components of a future lower limb injury prevention exercise protocol for community-level Australian football. © 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Funded by the NHMRC.
- Description: 2003011215
- Finch, Caroline, Cook, Jill, Kunstler, Breanne, Akram, Muhammad, Orchard, John
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Cook, Jill , Kunstler, Breanne , Akram, Muhammad , Orchard, John
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: The American Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 45, no. 8 (2017), p. 1921-1927
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: BACKGROUND: It is known that some people can, and do, sustain >1 injury over a playing season. However, there is currently little high-quality epidemiological evidence about the risk of, and relationships between, multiple and subsequent injuries. PURPOSE: To describe the subsequent injuries sustained by Australian Football League (AFL) players over 1 season, including their most common injury diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Within-player linked injury data on all date-ordered match-loss injuries sustained by AFL players during 1 full season were obtained. The total number of injuries per player was determined, and in those with >1 injury, the Subsequent Injury Classification (SIC) model was used to code all subsequent injuries based on their Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS) codes and the dates of injury. RESULTS: There were 860 newly recorded injuries in 543 players; 247 players (45.5%) sustained >/=1 subsequent injuries after an earlier injury, with 317 subsequent injuries (36.9% of all injuries) recorded overall. A subsequent injury generally occurred to a different body region and was therefore superficially unrelated to an index injury. However, 32.2% of all subsequent injuries were related to a previous injury in the same season. Hamstring injuries were the most common subsequent injury. The mean time between injuries decreased with an increasing number of subsequent injuries. CONCLUSION: When relationships between injuries are taken into account, there is a high level of subsequent (and multiple) injuries leading to missed games in an elite athlete group.
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
- ›
- »