Sports injury prevention programmes from the sports physical therapist's perspective: An international expert Delphi approach. (May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mendonça, Luciana De Michelis; Schuermans, Joke; Denolf, Sander; Napier, Christopher; Bittencourt, Natália F.N.; Romanuk, Andrés; Tak, Igor; Thorborg, Kristian; Bizzini, Mario; Ramponi, Carlo; Paterson, Colin; Hägglund, Martin; Malisoux, Laurent; Al Attar, Wesam Saleh A.; Samukawa, Mina; Esteve, Ernest; Bakare, Ummkulthoum; Constantinou, Maria; Schneiders, Anthony; Cavallieri Gomes, Alexandre; Florentz, Didier; Ozer Kaya, Derya; Indra Lesmana, Syahmirza; Harøy, Joar; Kuparinen, Vesa; Philips, Nicola; Jenkins, Walter; Wezenbeek, Evi; Witvrouw, Erik
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy in sport. Volume 55(2022)
• Page Start: 146
• Page End: 154
• Publication Date: 2022-05
• Subjects: Consensus -- Athletic injuries -- Physical therapy; Sports physical therapy -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Patients -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Athletic Injuries -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Athletic Injuries -- therapy -- Periodicals; Physical Therapy -- Periodicals; Sports Medicine -- Periodicals; 615.82088796
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.04.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-853X

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To provide consensus on how to plan, organize and implement exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) in sports. Design: Delphi. Setting: LimeSurvey platform. Participants: Experienced sports physical therapists from the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapy member countries. Main outcome measures: Factors related to sports IPP planning, organization and implementation. Results: We included 305 participants from 32 countries. IPP planning should be based on an athlete's injury history, on pre-season screening results, and on injury rates (respectively, 98%, 92%, 89% agreement). In total 97% participants agreed that IPP organization should depend on the athlete's age, 93% on the competition level, and 93% on the availability of low-cost materials. It was agreed that IPP should mainly be implemented in warm-up sessions delivered by the head or strength/conditioning coach, with physical training sessions and individual physical therapy sessions (respectively, 94%, 92%, 90% agreement). Conclusion: Strong consensus was reached on (1) IPP based on the athlete's injury history, pre-season screening and evidence-based sports-specific injury rates; (2) IPP organization based on the athlete's age, competition level, and the availability of low-cost materials and (3) IPP implementation focussing on warm-up sessions implemented by the strength/conditioning coach, and/or individual prevention sessions by the physical therapist. Highlights: IPP structuring involve injury rates, history and screening outcome as main factors. IPP organization involve injury risk profile, low-cost material and financial resources. IPP implementation is delivered mainly by warm-up or physical therapy sessions. Coach's support, athlete's routine and the work environment are considered for implementation.