Improving the diffusion of safety initiatives in community sport
- Poulos, Roslyn, Donaldson, Alex
- Authors: Poulos, Roslyn , Donaldson, Alex
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol. 18, no. 2 (2015), p. 139-144
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: The "Mayday Safety Procedure" (MSP) is included in the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) Medical and Safety Recommendations and the mandatory SmartRugby training for coaches. Previous research indicates that translating the Mayday Safety Procedure into practice among community rugby coaches is challenging. This study investigated whether Mayday Safety Procedure translation could be enhanced by systematically planning and implementing a range of theory-informed and context-specific diffusion strategies. Design: A controlled before-and-after study. Methods: Coaches of senior community rugby teams in five zones in New South Wales (Australia) were invited to complete a questionnaire about their Mayday Safety Procedure knowledge and practice at the end of the 2010 and 2011 rugby seasons. During 2011, coaches in the intervention zone were exposed to a range of strategies to promote Mayday Safety Procedure diffusion which were planned by following Step 5 of the Intervention Mapping protocol. Coaches in the other four zones were exposed to usual strategies to promote Mayday Safety Procedure diffusion. Results: Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, statistically significant improvements were found among intervention zone coaches in: knowledge of most Mayday Safety Procedure key criteria; the number of coaches recognising their zone policy requiring them to train players in the Mayday Safety Procedure; frequency of provision of Mayday Safety Procedure training to players; coach perceptions of the quality of Mayday Safety Procedure training for players; and in confidence that referees could implement the Mayday Safety Procedure during a game if required. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the translation of injury prevention policy into community practice can be enhanced by developing and implementing a theory-informed, context-specific diffusion plan, undertaken in partnership with key stakeholders. © 2014 Sports Medicine Australia.
- Ekegren, Christina, Gabbe, Belinda, Donaldson, Alex, Cook, Jill, Lloyd, David, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Ekegren, Christina , Gabbe, Belinda , Donaldson, Alex , Cook, Jill , Lloyd, David , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Vol. 18, no. 6 (2014), p.651-655
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565907
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: Far fewer injury surveillance systems exist within community sport than elite sport. As a result, most epidemiological data on sports injuries have limited relevance to community-level sporting populations. There is potential for data from community club-based injury surveillance systems to provide a better understanding of community sports injuries. This study aimed to describe the incidence and profile of community-level Australian football injuries reported using a club-based injury surveillance system. Design: Prospective, epidemiological study. Methods: Sports trainers from five community-level Australian football leagues recorded injury data during two football seasons using the club-based system. An online surveillance tool developed by Sports Medicine Australia ('Sports Injury Tracker') was used for data collection. The injury incidence, profile and match injury rate were reported. Results: Injury data for 1205 players were recorded in season one and for 823 players in season two. There was significant variability in injury incidence across clubs. However, aggregated data were consistent across football seasons, with an average of 0.7 injuries per player per season and 38-39 match injuries per 1000. h match exposure. A large proportion of injuries occurred during matches, involved the lower limb and resulted from contact. Conclusions: Data from the club-based system provided a profile of injuries consistent with previous studies in community-level Australian football. Moreover, injury incidence was consistent with other studies using similar personnel to record data. However, injury incidence was lower than that reported in studies using player self-report or healthcare professionals and may be an underestimate of true values.
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
- ›
- »