IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11334-d666972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of an Unsupervised Exercises-Based Athletics Injury Prevention Programme on Injury Complaints Leading to Participation Restriction in Athletics: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Pascal Edouard

    (Inter-University Laboratory of Human Movement Science (LIBM EA 7424), University Jean Monnet, University of Lyon, F-42023 Saint Etienne, France
    Sports Medicine Unit, Department of Clinical and Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, 42055 Saint-Etienne, France)

  • Kathrin Steffen

    (Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, 0806 Oslo, Norway)

  • Marie Peuriere

    (Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’Innovation (DRCI), Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire (CHU) de Saint-Etienne, 42055 Saint-Etienne, France)

  • Pierre Gardet

    (PGC, 42580 L’Etrat, France)

  • Laurent Navarro

    (Mines Saint-Etienne, U1059 Sainbiose, INSERM, University Jean Monnet, University of Lyon, F-42023 Saint-Etienne, France)

  • David Blanco

    (Physiotherapy Department, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195 Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

Objective: To test the efficacy of the Athletics Injury Prevention Programme (AIPP) to reduce the percentage of athletes presenting at least one injury complaint leading to participation restriction (ICPR) over an athletics season. Methods: During the 2017–2018 athletics season, we included in this cluster randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03307434) 840 athletes randomly assigned (randomisation unit: athletic clubs) to a control group (regular training) or to an intervention group (regular training plus the AIPP 2/week). Using a weekly online questionnaire, athletes reported the ICPR, training and competition exposures, and, for the intervention group, the compliance with the AIPP. The primary outcome was the percentage of athletes presenting at least one ICPR over the study follow-up. Results: A total of 449 and 391 athletes were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively. From them, 68 (15.1%) and 100 (25.6%) athletes, respectively, provided 100% of the requested information during the follow-up (39 weeks). A total of 6 (8.8%) performed the AIPP 2/week or more. The proportion of athletes who had at least one ICPR over the follow-up period was similar in the intervention (64.7%) and control groups (65.0%), with adjusted odds ratios: 0.81 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.85). There were no between-group differences when comparing separately the subgroups corresponding with the different compliance levels. Conclusion: This cluster randomised controlled trial reported no efficacy of the AIPP. However, the overall response proportion and the compliance with the AIPP in the intervention group were low. In individual sports especially, efforts should be first made to improve the implementation and adoption of interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pascal Edouard & Kathrin Steffen & Marie Peuriere & Pierre Gardet & Laurent Navarro & David Blanco, 2021. "Effect of an Unsupervised Exercises-Based Athletics Injury Prevention Programme on Injury Complaints Leading to Participation Restriction in Athletics: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11334-:d:666972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11334/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11334/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11334-:d:666972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.