An Investigation Into the Measurement of Injury Severity in Running-Related Injury Research: A Scoping Review.

Understanding injury severity is essential to inform injury prevention practice. The aims of this scoping review were to investigate how running-related injury (RRI) severity is measured, compare how it differs across studies, and examine whether it influences study outcomes (i.e., injury rates and risk factor identification). This scoping review was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework. A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and December 2023, investigated RRIs in adult running populations, and included a measure of injury severity. Results were extracted and collated. Sixty-six studies were included. Two predominant primary criteria are used to define injury severity: the extent of the effect on running and/or the extent of the physical description. When secondary definition criteria are considered, 13 variations of injury severity measurement are used. Two approaches are used to grade injury severity: a categorization approach or a continuous numerical scale. Overall, the measurement of RRI severity is relatively inconsistent across studies. Less than half of studies report incidence rates per level of injury severity, while none report specific risk factors across levels, making it difficult to determine if the approach to measuring injury severity influences these study outcomes. This lack of information is possibly contributing to inconsistent rates of RRIs reported, and the lack of clarity on risk factors.

Definitions and surveillance methods of running-related injuries: A scoping review.

Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub-descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two-approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow-up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.

The Running Injury Continuum: A qualitative examination of recreational runners' description and management of injury.

INTRODUCTION: A 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Runners 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

A qualitative examination of the factors affecting the adoption of injury focused wearable technologies in recreational runners.

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.

Does stammering act as a barrier to exercise and sport in Irish adults who stammer?

PURPOSE: Exercise and sport participation lead to many physical and psychosocial benefits. However, barriers to exercise and sporting participation exist. This study aims to examine if stammering acts as a barrier to exercise and sporting participation in adults. METHODS: One hundred and six adults who stammer (male n = 74, female n = 32; 33.83 ± 14.5 years) completed an anonymous questionnaire which evaluated their stammering history, exercise and sporting participation, views on why they exercise, whether stammering prevented or negatively influenced their participation in exercise or sport. Descriptive statistics were then calculated. RESULTS: The majority (90.6 %) of participants take part in some form of exercise/sport. However, their stammer prevented them from taking part in a specific exercise/sport at least once (49.1 %), due to being too nervous to introduce themselves, nervous or fear of stammering or being judged. Their stammer also negatively impacted their involvement when participating at least once (42.4 %), with not feeling part of the team and fear of speaking reported. Self-disclosure of their stammer and improving awareness of stammering were identified as common facilitators for taking part in exercise/sport. CONCLUSION: Stammering was not found to impact general participation in exercise and sport but was identified as a barrier to partaking in specific exercise and sport and their enjoyment thereof. Encouraging those who stammer to inform those involved in sport and exercise (e.g. fellow players, coaches) about their stammer and improving stammer awareness across the general and sporting population may encourage further participation in exercise and sport in those who stammer.