Awareness and Use of Current Sports Injury Prevention Programs among Physiotherapists Worldwide

Purpose. Physiotherapists are trained to prevent, assess, and rehabilitate all kinds of injuries including sports injury. The goal of the physical therapist should be making sure that the athlete is in optimal shape to perform, with a minimal risk for developing an injury. This study aims to assess the physiotherapists’ awareness, implementation, and views of sports injury prevention programs (IPPs) from an international perspective. Materials and methods. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and distributed to physiotherapists worldwide through World Physiotherapy member organizations. The study targeted physiotherapists at an international level. The study included 484 participants, of whom 44.4% were male and 55.6% were female physiotherapists. Results. A total of 287 (59.3%) of the participants were aware of the current sports IPPs, 177 (36.6%) were implementing sports IPPs in their current practice. Participants who implemented the sports IPPs reported a positive opinion about the program efficacy, with a score of 7.3 ± 2.11 out of 10. Conclusions. Globally, physiotherapists have average awareness and low implementation levels of IPPs. Physiotherapists showed a positive score regarding the effectiveness of IPPS, especially the KIPP and the iSPRINT.

Download Full-text

National Survey on Sports Injuries in the Netherlands: Target Populations for Sports Injury Prevention Programs

Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine ◽

10.1097/jsm.0b013e31819b9ca3 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 101-106 ◽

Cited By ~ 55

Author(s):

Sandor L Schmikli ◽

Frank J G Backx ◽

Helena J Kemler ◽

Willem van Mechelen

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Injury Prevention ◽

National Survey ◽

Sports Injuries ◽

Sports Injury ◽

Prevention Programs ◽

Target Populations

Download Full-text

A Comprehensive Summary of Systematic Reviews on Sports Injury Prevention Strategies

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/23259671211035776 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. 232596712110357

Author(s):

Samuel D. Stephenson ◽

Joseph W. Kocan ◽

Amrit V. Vinod ◽

Melissa A. Kluczynski ◽

Leslie J. Bisson

Keyword(s):

Injury Prevention ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Sports Injury ◽

Prevention Programs ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Musculoskeletal Injuries ◽

Ice Hockey ◽

Prevention Strategies ◽

Evidence Level ◽

Meta Analyses

Background: A large volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been published on the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs. Purpose: To provide a qualitative summary of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have examined the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs on reducing musculoskeletal injuries. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs. We excluded published abstracts, narrative reviews, articles not published in English, commentaries, studies that described sports injury prevention strategies but did not assess their effectiveness, studies that did not assess musculoskeletal injuries, and studies that did not assess sports-related injuries. The most relevant results were extracted and summarized. Levels of evidence were determined per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, revised version). Results: A total of 507 articles were retrieved, and 129 were included. Articles pertaining to all injuries were divided into 9 topics: sports and exercise in general (n = 20), soccer (n = 13), ice hockey (n = 1), dance (n = 1), volleyball (n = 1), basketball (n = 1), tackle collision sports (n = 1), climbing (n = 1), and youth athletes (n = 4). Articles on injuries by anatomic site were divided into 11 topics: general knee (n = 8), anterior cruciate ligament (n = 34), ankle (n = 14), hamstring (n = 11), lower extremity (n = 10), foot (n = 6), groin (n = 2), shoulder (n = 1), wrist (n = 2), and elbow (n = 1). Of the 129 studies, 45.7% were ranked as evidence level 1, and 55.0% were evidence level 2. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 58.9% of the reviews reported a priori review methods, 96.1% performed a comprehensive literature search, 47.3% thoroughly described excluded articles, 79.1% assessed risk of bias for individual studies, 48.8% reported a valid method for statistical combination of data (ie, meta-analysis), 45.0% examined the effect of risk of bias on pooled study results, and 19.4% examined the risk for publication bias. Conclusion: This comprehensive review provides sports medicine providers with a single source of the most up-to-date publications in the literature on sports injury prevention.

Download Full-text