You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 56, Issue 9
  • Determinants of the adoption of injury risk reduction programmes in athletics (track and field): an online survey of 7715 French athletes

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Determinants of the adoption of injury risk reduction programmes in athletics (track and field): an online survey of 7715 French athletes
  1. Alexis Ruffault1,2,
  2. Marine Sorg3,
  3. Simon Martin4,5,
  4. Christine Hanon1,6,
  5. Lison Jacquet3,
  6. Evert Verhagen7,
  7. Pascal Edouard3,8,9
  1. 1 Laboratory Sport, Expertise, and Performance (EA 7370), Institut National du Sport, de l'Expertise et de la Performance (French Institute of Sport (INSEP)), Paris, France
  2. 2 Unité de Recherche Interfacultaire Santé et Société (URiSS), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
  3. 3 Sports Medicine Unit, Department of Clinical and Exercise Physiology, University Hospital of Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne Cedex 2, France
  4. 4 Center of Research on Welfare Health and Sport, Halmstad University (Högskolan i Halmstad), Halmstad, Sweden
  5. 5 Laboratoire Adaptations Physiologiques à l’Exercice et Réadaptation à l’Effort (APERE), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
  6. 6 French Athletics Federation (FFA), Paris, France
  7. 7 Amsterdam Collaboration on Health & Safety in Sports, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University Medical Centers – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  8. 8 Inter‐University Laboratory of Human Movement Sciences (LIBM EA 7424), University Jean Monnet Saint-Étienne, University of Lyon, Saint-Étienne, France
  9. 9 European Athletics Medical & Anti Doping Commission, European Athletics Association (EAA), Lausanne, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pascal Edouard, Sports Medicine Unit, Department of Clinical and Exercise Physiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne 42055, France; Pascal.Edouard42{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives To identify individual characteristics associated with the adoption of injury risk reduction programmes (IRRP) and to investigate the variations in sociocognitive determinants (ie, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and intentions) of IRRP adoption in athletics (track and field) athletes.

Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using an online survey sent to athletes licensed with the French Federation of Athletics to investigate their habits and sociocognitive determinants of IRRP adoption. Sociodemographic characteristics, sports practice and history of previous injuries were also recorded. Logistic regression analyses and group comparisons were performed.

Results The final sample was composed of 7715 athletes. From the multivariable analysis, competing at the highest level was positively associated with IRRP adoption (adjusted OR (AOR)=1.66; 99.9% CI 1.39 to 1.99 and AOR=1.48; 99.9% CI 1.22 to 1.80) and presenting a low number of past injuries was negatively associated with IRRP adoption (AOR=0.48; 99.9% CI 0.35 to 0.65 and AOR=0.61; 99.9% CI 0.44 to 0.84), both during their lifetime and the current season, respectively. These results were supported by higher scores of sociocognitive determinants among athletes who reported IRRP adoption compared with other athletes.

Conclusion Some characteristics of athletes seem to be associated with IRRP adoption either positively (competing at the highest level) or negatively (presenting a lower number of past injuries), whereas all the sociocognitive determinants tested appear to be linked to IRRP adoption. Since many athlete characteristics are difficult or impossible to change, IRRP promotion may be enhanced by targeting athletes’ beliefs and intentions to adopt an IRRP.

  • athletes
  • behaviour
  • athletic injuries
  • preventive medicine

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author. Data availability statement: Data are available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-104593

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. Please contact the corresponding author. Data availability statement: Data are available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Evertverhagen

    • Contributors PE, MS and AR conceived and designed the study and proposed the study protocol. SM, CH, LJ and EV provided revisions on the study protocol. AR performed data analyses and drafted the manuscript. All coauthors contributed substantially to interpreting the results, provided important revisions and approved the manuscript. PE acts as guarantor of the present study.

    • Funding The present study was conducted in the context of the FULGUR project (ANR-19-STPH-003) funded by the French Research Agency in the perspective of the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games in collaboration with the French Federation of Athletics, Rugby and Ice Sports, Universities of Nantes, Côte d’Azur, Savoie Mont Blanc, Jean Monnet Saint-Étienne, Saclay, the Mines Saint-Étienne, the CEA and the CNRS. The University Jean Monnet Saint-Étienne and the French Institute of Sport (INSEP) are partners of the French-speaking network ReFORM. ReFORM, and the Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS) are recognised as Research Centres for the Prevention of Injury and Illness and the Protection of Athletes by the IOC and received funding from the IOC to establish a long-term research programme on the prevention of injuries and illnesses in sports to protect athletes' health.

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.