Dataset Information

Stimulating injury-preventive behaviour in sports: the systematic development of two interventions.

ABSTRACT: Background:In addition to the beneficial health effects of being active, sports are also associated with a risk of sustaining injuries. To avoid the occurrence of sports injuries, preventive measures can be applied. The aim of the current article is to provide insight into the systematic developmental process of two evidence-based interventions designed to stimulate injury-preventive behaviour in runners and skiers, in which Intervention Mapping (IM) and Knowledge Transfer Scheme (KTS) are used as developmental protocols. However, the ultimate steps in the process are adjusted to meet requirements of the intervention and the target group. Methods:Using a three-step process, we developed two interventions to stimulate injury-preventive behaviour in runners and skiers. Sports participants, sports experts and behaviour experts contributed throughout steps two and three of the developmental process. Results:In step one we started with a problem statement in which we used information about the number and the burden of running-related and skiing-related injuries in the Netherlands. In step two, in-depth research was performed using four research strategies. During this step we tried to answer the following question: Which preventive measures or actions should be executed to prevent what injuries by whom, and how should we do that? A desk research/systematic review of the literature, expert meetings, target user surveys, and target user focus group meetings were conducted. In step three of product development, both interventions were developed. During the developmental process, co-creation sessions with target users were held. Before finalizing the interventions, pre-tests of the interventions were performed with target users. Conclusions:Through a three-step approach, we developed two interventions to stimulate injury-preventive behaviour in runners and skiers. To develop an intervention that fits the needs of the target population, and will be used by them, it is necessary to involve this population as soon and as much as possible. Several steps in the IM and KTS protocols have thus been adjusted in order to establish an optimal fit between intervention and target group.

SUBMITTER: Kemler E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6805664 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stimulating injury-preventive behaviour in sports: the systematic development of two interventions.

Kemler E E Valkenberg H H Gouttebarge V V

BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation 20191021

<h4>Background</h4>In addition to the beneficial health effects of being active, sports are also associated with a risk of sustaining injuries. To avoid the occurrence of sports injuries, preventive measures can be applied. The aim of the current article is to provide insight into the systematic developmental process of two evidence-based interventions designed to stimulate injury-preventive behaviour in runners and skiers, in which Intervention Mapping (IM) and Knowledge Transfer Scheme (KTS) a ...[more]

PMID: 31649824

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been published on the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs.PurposeTo provide a qualitative summary of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have examined the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs on reducing musculoskeletal injuries.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs. We excluded published abstracts, narrative reviews, articles not published in English, commentaries, studies that described sports injury prevention strategies but did not assess their effectiveness, studies that did not assess musculoskeletal injuries, and studies that did not assess sports-related injuries. The most relevant results were extracted and summarized. Levels of evidence were determined per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, revised version).ResultsA total of 507 articles were retrieved, and 129 were included. Articles pertaining to all injuries were divided into 9 topics: sports and exercise in general (n = 20), soccer (n = 13), ice hockey (n = 1), dance (n = 1), volleyball (n = 1), basketball (n = 1), tackle collision sports (n = 1), climbing (n = 1), and youth athletes (n = 4). Articles on injuries by anatomic site were divided into 11 topics: general knee (n = 8), anterior cruciate ligament (n = 34), ankle (n = 14), hamstring (n = 11), lower extremity (n = 10), foot (n = 6), groin (n = 2), shoulder (n = 1), wrist (n = 2), and elbow (n = 1). Of the 129 studies, 45.7% were ranked as evidence level 1, and 55.0% were evidence level 2. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 58.9% of the reviews reported a priori review methods, 96.1% performed a comprehensive literature search, 47.3% thoroughly described excluded articles, 79.1% assessed risk of bias for individual studies, 48.8% reported a valid method for statistical combination of data (ie, meta-analysis), 45.0% examined the effect of risk of bias on pooled study results, and 19.4% examined the risk for publication bias.ConclusionThis comprehensive review provides sports medicine providers with a single source of the most up-to-date publications in the literature on sports injury prevention.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers.MethodsWe describe a case study about the effectiveness of using the citation sources Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and OVIDSP MEDLINE to identify records for inclusion in a systematic review.We used the 40 included studies identified by traditional database searches from one systematic review of interventions for multiple risk behaviours. We searched for each of the included studies in the four citation sources to retrieve the details of all papers that have cited these studies.We carried out two analyses; the first was to examine the overlap between the four citation sources to identify which citation tool was the most useful; the second was to investigate whether the citation searches identified any relevant records in addition to those retrieved by the original database searches.ResultsThe highest number of citations was retrieved from Google Scholar (1680), followed by Scopus (1173), then Web of Science (1095) and lastly OVIDSP (213). To retrieve all the records identified by the citation tracking searching all four resources was required. Google Scholar identified the highest number of unique citations.The citation tracking identified 9 studies that met the review's inclusion criteria. Eight of these had already been identified by the traditional databases searches and identified in the screening process while the ninth was not available in any of the databases when the original searches were carried out. It would, however, have been identified by two of the database search strategies if searches had been carried out later.ConclusionsBased on the results from this investigation, citation searching as a supplementary search method for systematic reviews may not be the best use of valuable time and resources. It would be useful to verify these findings in other reviews.

Dataset Information

Stimulating injury-preventive behaviour in sports: the systematic development of two interventions.

Publications

Stimulating injury-preventive behaviour in sports: the systematic development of two interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets