A qualitative examination of the factors affecting the adoption of injury focused wearable technologies in recreational runners.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies.Methods
A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed.Results
Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners' adoption of injury focused technologies.Conclusions
Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.
SUBMITTER: Lacey A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258862 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionA critical step in understanding and preventing running-related injuries (RRIs) is appropriately defining RRIs. Current definitions of RRIs may not represent the full process of injury development, failing to capture lower levels of injury that many athletes continue to train through. Understanding runners' description and management of the injury development process may allow for a more appropriate examination of all levels of injury. This study aimed to examine recreational runners' description and management of the injury development process.MethodsA qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Seven semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 18) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were reflexively thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding. Multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed.ResultsRunners describe injury on a nine-level continuum, ranging from injury-free to career-ending injury. There are lower and higher levels of injury. Each level of injury is described across four categories of descriptors; physical description, outcome (effect on running and daily life), psychological description, and management.ConclusionThe Running Injury Continuum is a tool that can be used for injury surveillance (for healthcare professionals and researchers) and for research investigating RRI risk factors. Healthcare professionals, researchers and coaches must ensure they monitor the development of all levels of RRIs, across all categories of descriptors. Runners need to be educated regarding appropriate self-management strategies for lower level injuries, with access to evidence-based information being a critical management tool.
| S-EPMC10550191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endurance running has become an immensely popular sporting activity, with millions of recreational runners around the world. Despite the great popularity of endurance running as a recreational activity during leisure time, there is no consensus on the best practice for recreational runners to effectively train to reach their individual objectives and improve physical performance in a healthy manner. Moreover, there are lots of anecdotal data without scientific support, while most scientific evidence on endurance running was developed from studies observing both recreational and professional athletes of different levels. Further, the transference of all this information to only recreational runners is difficult due to differences in the genetic predisposition for endurance running, the time available for training, and physical, psychological, and physiological characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present a selection of scientific evidence regarding endurance running to provide training guidelines to be used by recreational runners and their coaches. The review will focus on some key aspects of the training process, such as periodization, training methods and monitoring, performance prediction, running technique, and prevention and management of injuries associated with endurance running.
| S-EPMC7183043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction/purposePrevious injury has consistently been shown to be one of the greatest risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). Runners returning to participation following injury may still demonstrate injury-related mechanics (e.g. repetitive high impact loading), potentially exposing them to further injuries. The aim of this study was to determine if the magnitude (Peakaccel) and rate of loading (Rateaccel) at the tibia and sacrum differ between runners who have never been injured, those who have acquired injury resistance (runners who have not been injured in the past 2 years) and those who have been recently injured (RRI sustained 3-12 months ago).MethodsRunners completed an online survey capturing details of their RRI history over the previous 2 years. Never injured runners were matched by sex, quarterly annual mileage and typical training speed to runners who had acquired injury resistance and to runners who had been recently injured. Differences in Peakaccel and Rateaccel of the tibia and sacrum were assessed between the three groups during a treadmill run at a set speed, with consideration for sex.ResultsA total of 147 runners made up the three injury status groups (n: 49 per group). There was a significant main effect of injury status for Peakaccel and Rateaccel at the sacrum, with recently injured runners demonstrating significantly greater Rateaccel than never injured and acquired injury resistant runners. There was also a significant main effect for sex, with females demonstrating greater tibial Peakaccel, sacrum Peakaccel and Rateaccel than males.ConclusionRateaccel at the sacrum distinguishes recently injured runners from never injured runners and runners who may have acquired injury resistance, potentially highlighting poor impact acceleration attenuation in recently injured runners.
| S-EPMC9462674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRecreational running is one of the most common physical leisure activities worldwide and is associated with high rates of running related injury (RRI). Little is known of the perceptions of male recreational runners regarding the aetiology and management of RRI.DesignUtilising an interpretive phenomenological analysis framework, qualitative data was gathered from participants via interview, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop insights into the experiences and perceptions of the participants in relation to RRI.Materials and methodsTwo focus groups with a total of six (mean age 37.8 ± 9.5 years, 16.5 ± 13.1 years running experience) male recreational runners were used to obtain data regarding their understanding of RRI causation, prevention and management. Interviews were evaluated using a six-phase reflexive thematic analysis approach to generate and interpret themes within the data.ResultsThree themes (Mind, Body and Education) were identified by the analysis as critical to RRI avoidance. Mind refers to the self-understanding and self-management of personal limits required for RRI prevention. Body reflects a degree of physical conditioning necessary for injury free running, while Education indicates an understanding of how to correctly structure a running program. When viewed together these themes can be seen to form an 'internal locus of injury' model which highlights the runners' beliefs that RRI are related to their decisions regarding training and running, and that avoidance of injury lies within their personal control.ConclusionRecreational runners rely on self-management, in preference to professional advice, to manage training loads, fitness and RRI. Health care professionals involved with this population may consider the use of online resources, a preferred option of runners, to assist runners to build their knowledge base and support their development to experienced runners.
| S-EPMC9409521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMonitoring 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsResponses 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC8480020 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6858051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Using technology in stroke rehabilitation is attractive. Devices such as robots or smartphones can help deliver evidence-based levels of practice intensity and automated feedback without additional labor costs. Currently, however, few technologies have been adopted into everyday rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE:This project aimed to identify stakeholder (therapists, patients, and caregivers) priorities for stroke rehabilitation technologies and to generate user-centered solutions for enhancing everyday adoption. METHODS:We invited stakeholders (n=60), comprising stroke survivors (20/60, 33%), therapists (20/60, 33%), caregivers, and technology developers (including researchers; 20/60, 33%), to attend 2 facilitated workshops. Workshop 1 was preceded by a national survey of stroke survivors and therapists (n=177) to generate an initial list of priorities. The subsequent workshop focused on identifying practical solutions to enhance adoption. RESULTS:A total of 25 priorities were generated from the survey; these were reduced to 10 nonranked priorities through discussion, consensus activities, and voting at Workshop 1: access to technologies, ease of use, awareness of available technologies, technologies focused on function, supports self-management, user training, evidence of effectiveness, value for money, knowledgeable staff, and performance feedback. The second workshop provided recommendations for improving the adoption of technologies in stroke rehabilitation: an annual exhibition of commercially available and developing technologies, an online consumer-rating website of available technologies, and a user network to inspire and test new technologies. CONCLUSIONS:The key outcomes from this series of stakeholder workshops provides a starting point for an integrated approach to promoting greater adoption of technologies in stroke rehabilitation. Bringing technology developers and users together to shape future and evaluate current technologies is critical to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation.
| S-EPMC6119213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Running-related injuries (RRIs) are frequent, but no effective injury prevention measures have been identified yet. Therefore, we have set up the INSPIRE trial in 2017, in which the effectiveness of an online injury prevention programme was tested. Although this programme was not effective in reducing the number of RRIs, we gained new insights from this study, which we used to design an enhanced, online multidisciplinary injury prevention programme. The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of this enhanced injury prevention programme in a group of recreational runners. Methods and analysis:For this randomised controlled trial, we aim to include 3394 recreational runners aged 18 years or older who register for a running event (distances 10 to 42.2?km). During the preparation for the running event, runners in the intervention group get access to the enhanced online injury prevention programme. This online programme consists of 10 steps, all covering separate items of RRI prevention. Runners in the control group will follow their regular preparation. With three follow-up questionnaires (1?month before, 1?week before and 1?month after the running event), the proportions of self-reported RRIs in the intervention group and the control group are compared. Ethics and dissemination:An exemption for a comprehensive application has been obtained by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The results of the study will be disseminated among the running population, published in peer-reviewed international journals and presented on international conferences. Trial registration number:NL7694.
| S-EPMC7299036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe combination of excessive increases in running pace and volume is essential to consider when investigating associations between running and running-related injury.ObjectivesTo complete a secondary analysis, using a dataset from a randomized trial, to evaluate the interactions between relative or absolute weekly changes in running volume and running pace on the occurrence of running injuries among a cohort of injury-free recreational runners in Denmark.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingRunning volume and pace were collected during a 24-week follow-up using global positioning systems data. Training data were used to calculate relative and absolute weekly changes in running volume and pace.Patients or other participantsA total of 586 recreational runners were included in the analysis. All participants were injury free at baseline.Main outcome measure(s)Running-related injury was the outcome. Injury data were collected weekly using a modified version of the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre questionnaire. Risk difference (RD) was the measure of injury risk.ResultsA total of 133 runners sustained running-related injuries. A relative weekly change of progression >10% in running volume and progression in running pace (RD = 8.1%, 95% CI = -9.3%, 25.6%) and an absolute weekly change of progression >5 km in running volume and progression in running pace (RD = 5.2%, 95% CI = -12.0%, 22.5%) were not associated with a statistically significant positive interaction.ConclusionsGiven that coaches, clinicians, and athletes may agree that excessive increases in running pace and running volume are important contributors to injury development, we analyzed the interaction between them. Although we did not identify a statistically significant positive interaction on an additive scale in runners who progressed both running pace and running volume, readers should be aware that an interaction is an important analytical approach that could be applied to other datasets in future publications.
| S-EPMC9387370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recreational road running is growing in popularity and has been linked to numerous mental and physical health benefits. However, we know little about what environmental preferences or concerns runners have regarding participation in the sport, and whether differences exist across age and gender. We conducted a cross-sectional survey on recreational road runners to investigate the type of built and natural environments road runners prefer, as well as the safety and health concerns that may affect runners' choice of environment. Responses were analyzed by age and gender. A total of 1228 road runners responded to the survey; 59.6% of respondents were women and 32.1% of respondents were men. Most respondents preferred to run on asphalt or sidewalk surfaces, and preferred well-lit, tree-lined routes. Major concerns for both men and women include animals and dangerous road conditions. Men and women differed significantly in their responses to the importance of running around others and their primary concerns while running. Results of this study serve to deepen our understanding of recreational road runners' environmental preferences and concerns, providing valuable information for public health officials and city planners alike. This information must be considered if we are to continue to encourage uptake of running as a sport and reap its health effects.
| S-EPMC8296135 | biostudies-literature