Attitude and behaviour of junior rugby union players towards tackling during training and match play
- Authors: Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Safety Science Vol. 50, no. 4 (April 2012), p. 1157
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
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.
- O'Brien, James, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: O'Brien, James , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine Vol. 27, no. 1 (2017), p. 1-9
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To evaluate the perceptions of professional soccer players and staff members toward injury prevention exercise programs (IPEPs). Design: Self-report survey. Setting: Four professional soccer teams in 4 different countries. Participants: 126 players, coaches, physiotherapists, and fitness coaches were invited to participate, with 72 respondents. Main Outcome Measures: Web-based survey detailing perceptions of lower limb (LL) injury susceptibility and seriousness, the value of IPEPs in general, and more specifically the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) 11+. Results: The vast majority of the respondents believed that professional soccer players are at high risk of LL injuries (93%) and that players should perform evidence-based injury prevention exercises (98%). They also agreed that LL injuries can shorten a player's career (85%), cause physical problems later in life (82%), and negatively impact on team performance (77%). However, perceptions varied across teams regarding which types of injury prevention exercises are effective, who holds responsibility for injury prevention, and when IPEPs should be performed. Specific knowledge of the FIFA 11+ was very low and 47% of respondents believed the program would need modification for use in their team. Conclusions: Players and staff members in professional soccer teams strongly support the use of evidence-based IPEPs. However, perceptions vary considerably between teams regarding which exercises can prevent injuries, who holds the responsibility for injury prevention, and when preventive exercises should be performed. Enhancing the ultimate impact of IPEPs in professional soccer requires a detailed understanding of each team's specific implementation context. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »