Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Identifying evidence-practice gaps for shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers: uniting literature and expert opinion
  1. Alec Kenneth McKenzie1,2,
  2. Andrea Hams2,3,
  3. Jonathon Headrick2,
  4. Alex Donaldson4,
  5. Rick Dann2,
  6. Joseph Coyne5,6,
  7. Steven John Duhig2
  1. 1 Queensland Academy of Sport, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2 School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3 Griffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering (GCORE), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4 Centre for Sport and Social Impact, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6 University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Alec Kenneth McKenzie; alec.mckenzie2{at}griffithuni.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives To identify evidence-practice gaps regarding shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers.

Methods We gathered insights from 27 swimming experts including elite swimmers, coaches, high-performance staff and applied researchers using Concept Mapping. Participants brainstormed, sorted and rated (from 1 (least) to 10 (most) important and modifiable) their ideas of shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers. Proposed risk factors rated above the grand mean for importance (6.2±0.4) or modifiability (6.5±0.5) ratings were considered highly important/modifiable. Expert opinions were then juxtaposed with systematic review findings to identify overlaps or convergences.

Results Brainstorming generated 126 proposed shoulder injury risk factors for competitive swimmers, subsequently refined to 61 unique proposed risk factors by removing duplicates and combining similar responses. The participants sorted the 61 risk factors into seven distinct clusters. Experts perceived 36/61 proposed risk factors as highly important, of which 6 were supported by literature, 6 showed no association with injury, 2 had conflicting evidence and the remaining 22 have not yet been investigated, suggesting an evidence-practice gap. Three proposed risk factors ‘inconsistent training load’, ‘poor stroke technique’ and ‘low posterior shoulder strength-endurance’ exhibited high perceived importance, high perceived modifiability and supporting evidence.

Conclusion An evidence-practice gap was identified for 28 proposed risk factors perceived as highly important by swimming experts despite either (1) no relevant empirical research (n=22), or (2) no association with injury (n=6) from synthesised evidence. Greater collaboration between researchers and practitioners is needed to effectively address shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers.

  • Swimming
  • Sporting injuries
  • Risk factor
  • Shoulder

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All collected data is presented in-text. Please email corresponding author for any further information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All collected data is presented in-text. Please email corresponding author for any further information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @a_k_mckenzie, @andrea_hams, @Jon_Headrick, @AlexDonaldson13, @josephcoyne, @duhigs

  • Contributors This study was part of AKM's (guarantor) research programme supervised by SJD, AH and JH. AD provided expert guidance on concept mapping methodologies. JC provided practical input as an elite swimming strength and conditioning practitioner. RD aided with concept mapping analysis, data synthesis and manuscript drafting.

  • Funding This project was funded by a $A3000 grant award by Swimming Australia.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.