Dataset Information

RunIn3: the development process of a running-related injury prevention programme.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Running is an important type of exercise to keep people physically active. However, running also carries a risk of developing running-related injuries (RRI). Therefore, effective and evidence-based RRI prevention programmes are desirable, but are scarce in practice. An approach to face this problem might be the application of methods to develop RRI prevention programmes based on theories of behaviour change.

Objective

The purpose of the study was to develop an RRI prevention programme based on perspectives of behavioural and social science theories, as well as taking a framework development approach.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using the Intervention Mapping (IM) framework held between February and March 2018 in São Paulo, Brazil. The participants were involved in running practice. The data collection was conducted during focus group meetings. The data analysis was based on semantic thematic approach using a content analysis orientation based on inductive reasoning.

Results

The target population of the RRI prevention programme identified was 'adult recreational runners'. The objectives of the RRI prevention programme were established in two broad actions: (1) to provide feedback on individual training characteristics and RRI risk; and (2) provide/enhance knowledge, skills and self-efficacy on RRI preventive behaviours. The programme is aimed to be delivered through an online system.

Conclusion

An RRI prevention programme was developed using the IM framework and a participatory approach. The programme was named 'RunIn3', and it is based on providing feedback on running volume and RRI risk, as well as providing knowledge, skills and self-efficacy on RRI preventive behaviours.

SUBMITTER: Vallio CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8268886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRunning is one of the most popular and accessible physical activities in the world. However, running-related injuries are unfortunately very common. Scientific evidence is limited and scarce regarding (cost-)effectiveness and implementation process of interventions for running-related injuries prevention. Thus, the objective of this study will be to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation process of a running-related injury prevention program (RunIn3).MethodsThis is the protocol of a pragmatic hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. There will be 530 runners over 18 years old, without running-related injuries in the last 3 months from São Paulo, Brazil. This program will be delivered online with two broad actions: (1) to provide feedback on individual training characteristics and running-related injury risk; and (2) providing/enhancing knowledge, skills and self-efficacy on running-related injury preventive behaviors. The primary outcome will be the proportion of runners reporting running-related injuries. The secondary outcomes will be preventive behaviors, direct and indirect costs, and implementation outcomes. The main effectiveness analysis on the primary outcome will be performed using linear probability mixed models in order to allow outcome changes over time and to yield the absolute risk reduction between-groups.DiscussionThe main hypothesis of this study is that the RunIn3 program will be effective in reducing the running-related injury risk and in promoting preventive behavior, either by increasing the frequency of healthy behaviors or by reducing the frequency of risk behaviors. Moreover, if the RunIn3 program is effective in reducing the running-related injuries risk, we believe that this effect would go alongside with a reduction of societal costs.Trail registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT03892239) Registered 5 February 2019 - Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03892239.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care has a significant role in AKI management: two-thirds of AKI originates in the community. Through academic detailing (an evidence-based educational approach) we aimed to implement and measure the effect of a primary care-based education programme based around academic detailing and peer-reviewed audit.MethodsThe education programme took place across a large clinical commissioning group (CCG) consisting of 55 primary care practices. All 55 practices participated in large group teaching sessions, 25 practices participated in academic detailing and 28 of the remaining 30 practices performed internal AKI audit. Over a 12 month period, an educational programme was delivered consisting of large group teaching sessions followed by either academic detailing sessions or self-directed AKI audit activity. Academic detailing sessions consisted of a short presentation by a consultant nephrologist followed by discussion of cases. Qualitative feedback was collected from all participants at peer review sessions. Web-based, CCG-wide questionnaires assessed baseline and post-intervention knowledge levels.ResultsNine hundred ninety-six individuals completed the questionnaires (556 at baseline, 440 at 1 yr., 288 participated in both). Exposure to AKI teaching, self-reported awareness and confidence levels were higher in the second questionnaire. There was a significant increase in the percentage of correct answers before and after the intervention (55.6 ± 21% versus 87.5 ± 20%, p < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in practices that did not participate in academic detailing. 92.9% of participants in the academic detailing sessions ranked their usefulness as high, but half of participants expressed some anxiety about discussion of cases in front of peers.ConclusionPrimary care education can improve knowledge and awareness of AKI. Small group teaching with involvement of a nephrologist was popular, although there were mixed responses to group discussion of real cases. Academic detailing did not appear more effective than other educational formats.

Project description:BackgroundGiven the high incidence and heavy burden of running related injuries, large-scale, prospective multifactorial investigations examining potential risk factors are warranted. This study aimed to identify factors associated with running related injuries and to evaluate their potential in injury screening.Study designProspective cohort study.Materials and methodsTwo hundred and seventy-four recreational runners were recruited. Clinical measures (strength, range of motion, foot position), injury and training history (via questionnaire), impact loading (via accelerometery) and running technique measures were collected at baseline. Runners were tracked for injury for one year via fortnightly check-ins. A binary logistic regression, (injury versus no injury), was performed for each variable univariably, and then adjusting for age, sex and mileage. A multivariable regression was also performed to evaluate the model's discriminative ability.ResultsOf the 225 runners included in the final analysis 52% experienced a running related injury. Injury history in the past year, less navicular drop, and measures of running technique (knee, hip, and pelvis kinematics) were associated with increased odds of injury (p < .05). The multivariable logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ2(11) = 56.45, p < .001, correctly classifying 74% of cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 76%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (CI95% = 0.73-0.85), demonstrating acceptable discriminative ability.ConclusionsThis study found a number of clinical and running technique factors to be associated with prospective running related injuries among recreational runners. With the exception of injury history, the factors identified as being significantly associated with injury may be modifiable and therefore, could form the basis of interventions. Range of motion, spatiotemporal parameters and strength measures were not associated with injury and thus their utilisation in injury prevention practices should be reconsidered.

Project description:ContextRunning-related injuries are common in distance runners. Strength training is used for performance enhancement and injury prevention. However, the association between maximal strength and distance-running biomechanics is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between maximal knee- and hip-extensor strength and running biomechanics previously associated with injury risk.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingResearch laboratory.Patients or other participantsA total of 36 collegiate distance runners (26 men, 10 women; age = 20.0 ± 1.5 years, height = 1.74 ± 0.09 m, mass = 61.97 ± 8.26 kg).Main outcome measure(s)Strength was assessed using the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat and maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the knee extensors and hip extensors. Three-dimensional running biomechanics were assessed overground at a self-selected speed. Running variables were the peak instantaneous vertical loading rate; peak forward trunk-lean angle; knee-flexion, internal-rotation, and -abduction angles and internal moments; and hip-extension, internal-rotation, and -adduction angles and internal moments. Separate stepwise linear regression models were used to examine the associations between strength and biomechanical outcomes (ΔR2) after accounting for sex, running speed, and foot-strike index.ResultsGreater 1RM back-squat strength was associated with a larger peak knee-flexion angle (ΔR2 = 0.110, ΔP = .045) and smaller peak knee internal-rotation angle (ΔR2 = 0.127, ΔP = .03) and internal-rotation moment (ΔR2 = 0.129, ΔP = .03) after accounting for sex, speed, and foot-strike index. No associations were found between 1RM back-squat strength and vertical loading rate, trunk lean, or hip kinematics and kinetics. Hip- and knee-extensor maximal voluntary isometric contractions were also not associated with any biomechanical variables.ConclusionsGreater 1RM back-squat strength was weakly associated with a larger peak knee-flexion angle and smaller knee internal-rotation angle and moment in collegiate distance runners. Runners who are weaker in the back-squat exercise may exhibit running biomechanics associated with the development of knee-related injuries.

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.