Dataset Information

Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recruitment took place at three different 5 km parkrun event across Northern Ireland. Demographics, technology use, running behaviour and running-related injury (RRI) history were examined. Regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between variables.

Results

Responses were obtained from 192 of 483 eligible finishers (39.8% response rate). Average age was 45.9 years (SD 10.3), with males (47.1 years SD 9.7) slightly older than females (44.8 years SD 10.8). On average, participants ran 3.0 days per week (SD 1.3), with an average weekly distance of 22.6 km (SD 19.7). Males typically ran further (MD 6.2 km/week; 95% CI 0.4 to 12.0) than females. Monitoring technology was used by 87.4% (153/175); with GPS watches the most common device (87.6% (134/153)). Runners using monitoring technology ran further (MD 14.4 km/week; 95% CI 10.3 to 18.5) and more frequently (MD 1.3 days/week; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9) than those who did not use monitoring technology. There was no significant difference in average age between runners who used monitoring technology and those who did not (MD 4.0 years; 95% CI -0.7 to 8.7). RRI was reported by 40.6% (71/175) of participants in the previous 12 months. In a univariate analysis, none of the selected predictors (age, number of days run per week, distance run per week, or usage of technology to modify training pattern) (p > 0.1) were associated with RRI.

Conclusions

This study found a high prevalence of monitoring technology usage among recreational runners. While the incidence of RRI remains high, it is not associated with the usage of monitoring technology. Further prospective research should examine if monitoring technology can reduce RRI incidence among recreational runners in future.

SUBMITTER: Mayne RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This cross-sectional study aimed to obtain fundamental knowledge about pain during a marathon run. During the first seven months of 2007, announcements on websites of interest to marathon runners were used to recruit participants. A total of 1,251 runners (550 female runners) completed a 41-question online survey about the location and intensity of their primary pain during their last marathon and potentially related variables [perception of effort during the marathon, number of prior marathons run, typical pain intensity during training runs, percentage of training days with run-induced pain, highest intensity pain ever experienced]. Pain location was selected from a list of 27 specified body sites covering the entire body. Kilometer at which pain first occurred indexed pain threshold. Pain intensity at the primary location of pain was measured with a standardized, well-validated 0-10 pain intensity scale. Pearson correlations and multiple regression quantified the associations between average pain intensity and other variables. Sex-related differences in pain were tested using independent t-tests. Effort ratings (6-20) were added as a covariate in an ANCOVA to test if perceived effort accounted for possible sex-related differences in pain. Based on the available research, it was hypothesized that: (i) most runners would report moderate intensity pain, (ii) pain would be associated with both exercise intensity during the marathon and pain during training, and (iii) after adjusting for expected sex-related differences in perceived effort, females would experience pain earlier and rate the pain intensity as higher. All but two runners (99.8%) reported pain during a marathon, and most frequently in the anterior/medial thigh (17.1%), hamstring (10%), and calf (9.3%) locations. Pain threshold occurred at 25.3 ± 9.8 km (15.7 ± 6.1 miles) and the overall pain intensity of the run was 5.26 ± 2.45. No sex-related pain differences were found. Overall pain intensity during a marathon was significantly associated with: pain intensity during training runs (r = 0.39), percentage of training days with run-induced pain (r = 0.23), highest intensity pain ever experienced (r = 0.23), number of prior marathons (r = -0.18), and intensity of effort (r = 0.11) (all P < 0.001). Most runners experience moderate to very strong intensity pain during a marathon; the pain was independent of biological sex, and the pain is weakly associated with marathon race experience, pain during training, race effort, and the highest intensity of pain ever experienced.

Project description:BackgroundLong-distance runners are prone to injuries including Achilles tendinopathy and medial tibial stress syndrome. We have developed an Internet comprehensive self-report questionnaire examining the medical history, injury history, and running habits of adult recreational runners.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to evaluate two alternative forms of test-retest reliability of a comprehensive self-report Internet questionnaire retrospectively examining the medical history, injury history, and running habits among a sample of adult recreational runners. This will contribute to the broad aims of a wider study investigating genetics and running injury.MethodsInvitations to complete an Internet questionnaire were sent by email to a convenience pilot population (test group 1). Inclusion criteria required participants to be a recreational runner age 18 or over, who ran over 15 km per week on a consistent basis. The survey questions addressed regular running habits and any injuries (including signs, symptoms, and diagnosis) of the lower limbs that resulted in discontinuation of running for a period of 2 consecutive weeks or more, within the last 2 years. Questions also addressed general health, age, sex, height, weight, and ethnic background. Participants were then asked to repeat the survey using the Internet platform again after 10-14 days. Following analysis of test group 1, we soft-launched the survey to a larger population (test group 2), through a local running club of 900 members via email platform. The same inclusion criteria applied, however, participants were asked to complete a repeat of the survey by telephone interview after 7-10 days. Selected key questions, important to clarify inclusion or exclusion from the wider genetics study, were selected to evaluate test-retest reliability. Reliability was quantified using the kappa coefficient for categorical data.ResultsIn response to the invitation, 28 participants accessed the survey from test group 1, 23 completed the Internet survey on the first occasion, and 20 completed the Internet retest within 10-21 days. Test-retest reliability scored moderate to almost perfect (kappa=.41 to .99) for 19/19 of the key questions analyzed. Following the invitation, 122 participants accessed the survey from test group 2, 101 completed the Internet survey on the first occasion, and 50 were randomly selected and contacted by email inviting them to repeat the survey by telephone interview. There were 33 participants that consented to the telephone interview and 30 completed the questionnaire within 7-10 days. Test-retest reliability scored moderate to almost perfect for 18/19 (kappa=.41 to .99) and slight for 1/19 of the key questions analyzed.