The use and modification of injury prevention exercises by professional youth soccer teams
- Authors: O'Brien, James , Young, Warren , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports Vol. 27, no. 11 (2017), p. 1337-1346
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: The efficacy of injury prevention exercise programs (IPEPs) for amateur youth soccer has been established, but little is known about their adaptability to other soccer populations. This study aimed to assess the use of individual injury prevention exercises by professional youth soccer teams, against the industry-standard, FIFA 11+ program. Four teams' chosen IPEPs were observed across one season and documented on a standardized form. The use of each FIFA 11+ exercise was coded as “performed”, “performed modified” or “not performed”. The proportion of the 160 observed sessions containing each individual exercise was calculated. Staff provided reasons for their use and modification of FIFA 11+ exercises. On average, individual FIFA 11+ exercises were conducted in original form in 12% of the sessions (range 0–33%), and in modified form in 28% of sessions (range 2–62%). The five most frequently observed exercises, in either original or modified form, were “bench” (72%), “squats” (69%), “running straight” (68%), “single-leg stance” (66%), and “sideways bench” (64%). Staff modified exercises to add variation, progression, and individualization, and to align with specific training formats and goals. Professional youth soccer teams often use injury prevention exercises similar to those in the FIFA 11+, but tailor them considerably to fit their implementation context.
Scientific evidence is just the starting point : A generalizable process for developing sports injury prevention interventions
- 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.
When 'just doing it' is not enough: Assessing the fidelity of player performance of an injury prevention exercise program
- 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.