Article Text

Download PDFPDF
  1. Josefine Stoll,
  2. Juliane Mueller,
  3. Steffen Mueller,
  4. Michael Cassel,
  5. Frank Mayer
  1. University Potsdam, Medical Examination Center of the German Olympic Sports Federation, Potsdam, Germany


    Background Prevention programs are reducing the risk of injuries. The success of these programs is dependent on a high compliance. However, it is unclear which kind of supervision lead to a high compliance in young athletes.

    Objective To compare the influence of different kinds of prevention-supervision during prevention training on compliance in young athletes.

    Design Controlled trial.

    Setting University Potsdam, Medical Examination Center of the German Olympic Sports Federation.

    Patients (or Participants) 173 young athletes (m/f: 108/68; 13.4±0.4 yrs, 164.±58.6 cm, 52.3±9.0 kg) from different sports were included.

    Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) Athletes participated in a back pain prevention program (duration: 45 weeks; 4 exercises, 3 times/week, progression every 15 weeks). Following the initial introduction to the program, athletes were divided into 3 groups (G1: N=30; G2: N=54; G3: N=89). In G1 the coach, in G2 the coach and the athlete was responsible to execute the prevention program. In addition to G2, a therapist supervised the program once per week in G3. The number of prevention sessions was documented (paper & pencil) by coach (G1), athlete (G2) and athlete/therapist (G3).

    Main Outcome Measurements The number of response per athlete (documented sessions) and the training-sessions per week was analysed. Data are presented descriptively followed by analysis of group differences (ANOVA; post-hoc Tukey, α =0.05).

    Results All athletes in G1 responded and documented the training-session/week with a frequency of 2.0±0.4 sessions/week. In G2 53 athletes (2.5±0.7 sessions/week) and in G3 75 athletes (2.7±0.8 sessions/week) responded. Statistically significant differences could be shown between G1 and G2 (p=0.0005) and between G1 and G3 (p=0.058). There were no group differences between G2 and G3 (p=0.15).

    Conclusions For a targeted high compliance in prevention training, a supervised implementation seems necessary. Good teamwork between coach, athlete and therapist seems to be mandatory. A personal responsibility of the athlete is relevant.

    • Injury

    Statistics from

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.