French Athletics Stakeholders' Perceptions of Relevance and Expectations on Injury Prevention.

This study aimed to explore how stakeholders in athletics perceive the relevance of injury prevention, determine their communication preferences, and describe their expectations regarding injury prevention. We conducted a cross-sectional study using an exploratory online survey with high-level athletes (i. e. listed by the French ministry of sports), non-high-level athletes (i. e. all competitive level except high-level athletes), coaches, and health professionals licensed with the French Federation of Athletics. The survey was composed of three parts regarding stakeholder's characteristics (4 questions), perceived relevance (2 questions), communication preferences and expectations (3 questions) towards injury prevention. There were 2,864 responders to the survey. Almost all responders found that injury prevention is relevant (97.7% [95% CI 97.0% to 98.2%]), without any significant differences in the distribution between stakeholders' age, experience and sex (p>0.05). About three-quarters of the stakeholders preferred to find injury prevention information on a website (77.4%) without significant differences between stakeholders' categories (p>0.05); other media to find injury prevention information was chosen by less than 50% of responders. Expectations about injury prevention were mainly explanations, advice and tips about injury knowledge, management and prevention, based on expert opinion and/or scientific research. In conclusion, these results confirm that injury prevention is a challenge shared by numerous stakeholders in athletics, within France, and provide some orientation on how and what information to disseminate to these stakeholders.

Who and what can contribute to improve the statistical thinking in sports injury research? A humorous analogy between basketball and members of the multidisciplinary research team

No disponible

How (not) to interpret a non-causal association in sports injury science.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the interpretability of non-causal associations to sports injury development exemplified via the relationship between navicular drop (ND) and running-related injury (RRI) in novice runners using neutral shoes. DESIGN: 1-year prospective cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 926 novice runners, representing 1852 feet, were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome was "a musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least a week". RESULTS: Fewer feet with small ND than those feet with a reference ND sustained injuries at 50 (risk difference (RD) = -4.1% [95%CI = -7.9%;-0.4%]) and 100 km (RD = -5.3% [95%CI = -9.9%;-0.7%]). Similarly, fewer feet with a large ND sustained injuries than the feet with a reference drop at 250 (RD = -7.6% [95%CI = -14.9%;-0.3%]) and 500 km (RD = -9.8% [95%CI = -19.1%;-0.4%]). CONCLUSION: Non-causal associations can help to identify sub-groups of athletes at an increased or decreased risk of sports injury. Based on the current results, those with a small or large navicular drop sustain fewer injuries than those with a reference drop. Importantly, navicular drop does not cause RRIs, but influences the relationship between training load and RRI. This illustrates that non-causal associations are unsuitable to respond to the question: Why do sports injury develop?