Level of responsibility
Goals
Sample strategies
Child
Enhance behavior adoption, adherence, and short- and long-term maintenance
Identify:
• Reasons for participating in sport (i.e., skill development, enjoyment, social interaction, competition)
• Role of significant others/role models (i.e., parents, coaches, peers, teammates)
• Knowledge of injury risk and long-term health implications
• Attainable and meaningful goal
• Barriers and facilitators to adoption and adherence of sport safety measures (i.e., skill, availability of resources)
Parent
Support child’s interests, motivation for participation, and facilitate adoption and adherence to sport safety measures
• Reinforce importance of injury prevention messages and strategies
• Model appropriate behavior
• Acknowledge feelings and be supportive
Coach/Teacher/Trainer
Support effective knowledge transfer and facilitate intrinsic motivation toward the adoption and adherence of sport safety and injury prevention measures
Provide:
• Meaningful rationale for engaging in the task
• Opportunities for skill development
• Skill contingent activities
• Acknowledge participation
• Appropriate and meaningful feedback
• Involve youth in decision making and goal-setting (individual and team); incorporate their ideas, interests, and needs
• Identify how injury prevention goals align with individual and team goals; monitor progress
• Adopt a supportive and communicative style; listen, clarify expectations, and offer choice
• Acknowledge that the needs of the youth participant go beyond the realm of sport (care about the whole individual)
Sport organization
Awareness, engagement, training and educational opportunities for coaches, parents, and children
• Reinforcement through policy and supportive environments (social, physical, cultural)
Government
Prioritization of injury prevention and health promotion within the context of youth sport
• Policy generation and community level translation (education, sport)
• Establish risk management procedures
• Provide targeted funding and infrastructure support
An extension of this model developed by Emery et al. [30] emphasizes the diversity of factors across the multi-leveled influences on youth safety behaviors (Fig. 15.1) [31].
It is impossible to eliminate all injury in youth sport; however, injury prevention strategies can reduce the number and severity of injuries in many sports. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an evidence-based review on what is known about intrinsic and extrinsic injury prevention strategies which have been evaluated in child and adolescent sports. Injury prevention strategies are highlighted and gaps in the literature in injury prevention in youth sport are summarized.
Injury Prevention
Based on relative burden, the focus of much of the evidence surrounding injury prevention in youth sport has been on reducing the risk of lower extremity injuries and concussions. Until the past decade, there has been a relative paucity of scientifically rigorous evaluation studies examining the efficacy of injury prevention strategies in youth sport [32, 33]. Historically, epidemiological research focused on the evaluation of prevention strategies in elite adult amateur and professional athlete populations where injury surveillance practice was established more commonly with the presence of medical staff within the sport structure [32, 33]. As a result, previous recommendations for injury prevention practice in youth sport have relied heavily on studies in adult elite sport populations [32, 33].
Injury prevention strategies may be developed to target intrinsic risk factors including previous injury, decreased strength, endurance, flexibility, and neuromuscular control including balance. Alternatively, prevention strategies may be developed to address extrinsic risk factors including changes in the rules of the sport and protective equipment. To inform this book chapter, the literature evaluating injury prevention strategies in youth sport has been systematically reviewed and has demonstrated an increasing body of literature in the youth athlete population. Studies selected and summarized in Table 15.2 included only studies which (1) were based on original data with full-text paper published; (2) included only youth sport participants under age 19; (3) evaluated an injury prevention intervention with a primary outcome of sport injury; (4) study design was prospective and included randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental, or cohort designs. In addition, review articles are also considered. In total, 31 studies have been identified and categorized by sport (Table 15.2) [34–64]. Seventeen studies are RCTs with the remainder being primarily quasi-experimental (non-randomized experimental design) and cohort studies [34–64]. The studies included are in youth soccer (11), ice hockey (2), European handball (3), American Football (3), basketball (2), rugby (1), Australian football (1), baseball (1), multisport (5), and school physical education (2). A diversity of at risk sport-specific and school-based youth sport populations have been targeted for injury prevention strategy evaluations. The greatest proportion of these strategies have targeted modifiable intrinsic risk factors (e.g., strength, endurance, balance) through exercise interventions, primarily neuromuscular training interventions [34–44, 47–51, 53, 54, 56, 58–61, 63, 64]. In addition, extrinsic risk factors have been addressed through rule modification [45, 46] and equipment strategies [52, 55, 57, 62] in some youth sports. Additionally, 17 review articles (including systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and relevant studies in adult populations and studies using retrospective (case-control or historical cohort) or cross-sectional designs are discussed [32, 33, 65–91].
Table 15.2
Injury prevention research in youth sport
Sport title Author Publication Year | Study, design, duration, country | Participants (sport, level, sex, age, sample size) (IG = Intervention group; CG = Control group) (n = # players, N = # teams) | Outcome (injury definition) | Intervention description | Control condition description | Reported incidence rate (IR/1,000 h) or incidence proportion (IP/100 players) (IG = Intervention group; CG = Control group) | Effect estimates [incidence rate ratios (IRR), risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) (95 % CI)] Reported or calculated based on data provided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soccer | |||||||
Emery et al. 2010 [34] | Cluster RCT 1 indoor season (20 weeks) Canada | Soccer Male and female (12–17) IG: (n = 380, N = 32) CG: (n = 364, N = 28) | Soccer injury requiring medical attention and/or time loss (assessed by physiotherapist) | NMT program (15 min coach delivered, physiotherapist taught warm-up) (aerobic, dynamic stretching, strength, balance, agility) and a 15-min home-based balance training (wobble board) | Home stretching program + standard of practice warm-up | All injury IG: IR = 2.08 CG: IR = 3.35 Acute injury IG: IR = 1.75 CG: IR = 3.05 LE injury IG: IR = 1.75 CG: IR = 2.54 Ankle sprain IG: IR = 0.58 CG: IR = 1.14 Knee sprain IG: IR = 0.12 CG: IR = 0.34 | All injury IRR = 0.62 (0.39–0.99) Acute injury IRR = 0.57 (0.35–0.91) LE injury IRR = 0.68 (0.42–1.11) Ankle sprain IRR = 0.5 (0.24–1.04) Knee sprain IRR = 0.38 (0.08–1.75) |
Hägglund et al. 2013 [35] | Cohort study 1 season (7 months) Sweden (secondary analysis of an RCT) | Soccer Eight Swedish districts Female (12–17 years) IG (n = 2,471, N = 181) CG (n = 2,085, N = 157) | Soccer injury (a) Acute knee injury—sudden onset and time loss (b) ACL injury—partial or total tear isolated, concomitant, new or recurrent | NMT program (Knakontroll)—taught by therapist, coach, and player delivered 2×/week training session (DVD and pamphlet) | Standard of practice | IG: IR low compliance = 0.72 IR intermediate compliance = 0.19 IR High compliance = 0.2 (7 ACL) CG: IR = 0.34 (14 ACL) | IG: Low compliance: 1 (reference) Intermediate compliance: IRR = 0.26 (0.12–0.57) High compliance: IRR = 0.28 (0.13–0.55) CG: Control IRR = 0.48 (0.29–0.82) |
Heidt et al. 2000 [36] | RCT 1 year (4 month + 6 month season) USA | Soccer Female (14–18 years) IG (n = 42) CG (n = 258) | Soccer injury Time loss | Preseason NMT (7 week—20 session) (sport-specific cardiovascular conditioning, plyometrics, sport cord drills, strength, and flexibility) | Standard of practice | IG: 7 injuries IP = 16.67 Knee: 3 ACL: 1 Ankle: 2 CG: 91 injuries IP = 35.27 Knee: 29 ACL: 8 Ankle: 26 | All injury RR = 0.47 (p = 0.0085) ACL injury RR = 0.77 (p > 0.05) |
Junge et al. 2002 [37] | Quasi-experimental design 2 seasons Switzerland | Soccer Male (14–19 years) IG (n = 101, N = 7) CG (n = 93, N = 7) | Soccer injury Any physical complaint >2 weeks or time loss injury Overuse injury | F-MARC Bricks—NMT program Warm-up (flexibility, strength, coordination, reaction time, endurance), cool down, ankle taping, rehabilitation, fair play Coach education, coach delivered + physiotherapist weekly | Standard of practice | IG: 77 injuries in 53 players IR = 6.71 CG: 111 injuries in 67 players IR = 8.48 Overuse IR IG IR = 3.96 CG IR = 5.69 High-skill group IG: 6.35 CG: 6.78 Low-skill group IG: 6.95 CG: 11.1 | All injury IRR = 0.79 (p > 0.05) Overuse injury IRR = 0.7 (p > 0.05) High-skill group IRR = 0.94 (p > 0.05) Low-skill group IRR = 0.63 (p < 0.5) |
Kiani et al. 2007 [38] | Quasi-experimental design 1 season 12 weeks preseason training + 6 month season Sweden | Soccer Female (13–19 years) IG (n = 777, N = 48) CG (n = 729, N = 49) | Knee injuries requiring medical attention | Harmo Knee (warm-up, muscle activation, balance, strength, core stability) (2×/week preseason, 1×/week season) | Standard of practice | Knee injury IG: IR = 0.04 CG: IR = 0.2 Noncontact knee injury IG: IR = 0.01 CG: IR = 0.15 | Knee injury IRR = 0.17 (0.04–0.64) Noncontact knee injury: IRR = 0.06 (0.01–0.46) Adjusted for cluster, age, match:training ratio, # players on team, intensity |
Malliou et al. 2004 [39] | Quasi-experimental design 12 months Greece | Soccer elite youth (mean age 16.7 IG and 16.9 CG) IG (n = 50, N = 2) CG (n = 50, N = 2) | Lower extremity injury requiring time loss (assessed by orthopedic surgeon, physiotherapist, and/or trainer) | Balance training (Biodex Stability System, mini trampoline, balance boards) (2×/week, 20 min) | Standard of practice soccer training | LE injury IG: 60 (IP 1.2) CG: 88 (IP 1.76) | RR = 0.68 (0.48–0.96) |
Mandelbaum et al. 2005 [40] | Quasi-experimental design 2 season USA | Soccer Female (14–18 years) Season 1 IG (n = 1,041, N = 52) CG (n = 1,905, N = 95) Season 2 IG (n = 844, N = 45) CG (n = 1,913, N = 112) | Knee injury—self-report Noncontact ACL tear—physician assessed and MRI and/or arthroscopic procedure | The Prevent Injury and Enhance Performance (PEP) Program (videotape including warm-up activities, stretching, strengthening, plyometric, agility) | Standard of practice | Year 1: IG: 2 ACL IR = 0.05 CG: 32 ACL IR = 0.47 Year 2 IG: 4 ACL IR = 0.13 CG: 35 ACL IR = 0.51 | Year 1 ACL IRR = 0.11 (0.03–0.48) Year 2 IRR = 0.26 (0.09–0.73) |
Soligard et al. 2008 [41] | Cluster RCT 1 season (8 months) Norway | Soccer Female 125 clubs (13–17 years) IG (n = 1,055, N = 65) CG (n = 837, N = 60) | Soccer injury (a) All—time loss injuries only (b) Lower extremity (LE) (c) Knee (d) Ankle (e) Acute—sudden onset (f) Overuse: gradual onset (g) Severe—time loss >28 days | NMT program (11+) Running, strength, plyometrics, balance, and running exercises—instructional workshop, coach, and player delivered every training session (DVD, poster, pamphlet, and exercise cards) | Standard of practice | IG: 161 injuries in 1,055 players CG: 215 injuries in 837 players IRs reported: Knee injury: IG = 0.7 CG = 1.3 Ankle injury: IG-1.0 CG = 1.1 | (a) All IRR = 0.71(0.49–1.03) (b) LE RR = 0.71(0.49–1.03) (c) Knee IRR = 0.55(0.36–0.84) (d) Ankle IRR = 0.89(0.61–1.31) (e) Acute RR = 0.74(0.51–1.08) (f) Overuse RR = 0.47(0.26–0.85) (g) Severe 0.55(0.36–0.83) |
Steffen et al. 2008 [42] | Cluster RCT 1 season (8 months) Norway | Soccer Female (13–17 years) IG (n = 1,091, N = 59) CG (n = 1,001, N = 54) | Time loss injury Acute—sudden onset | NMT program (F-MARC 11) (core stability, strength, NM control, agility) Instructor taught (4 sessions) and coach delivered | Standard of practice | IG 204 injuries (IP = 19) IR = 3.6 (3.2–4.1) CG 192 injuries (IP = 20) IR = 3.7 (3.2–4.1) | All injury RR = 1.0 (0.8–1.2) for Acute match injury RR = 1.1 (0.9–1.3) Acute training injuries 0.7 (0.5–1.1) ACL injury RR 0.8 (0.2–2.9) |
Steffen et al. 2012 [43] | Cluster RCT 1 season (4 months) Canada | Soccer Female (13–18 years) IG(comp = comprehensive delivery) (n = 129, N = 10) IG(reg = regular delivery) (n = 121, N = 8) CG (n = 135, N = 11) | Soccer injury (a) All injury requiring medical attention and/or time loss (b) Lower extremity injury (LE) | NMT program (11+) Running, strength, plyometrics, balance—instructional workshop, coach delivered every training and game session Regular IG: 11+ coach workshop (DVD, poster, 11+ web site) Comprehensive IG: 11+ coach workshop (DVD, poster, 11+ web site) and regular follow-up to team by physiotherapist | 11+ web site information only | All injuries CG: 21 injuries (IP = 15.6) RIG: 25 (IP = 20.7) CIG: 22 (IP = 17.2) | All injury: IRR(comp) = 0.44(0.18–1.06) IRR(reg) = 0.97(0.47–2.0) LE injury: IRR(comp) = 0.52(0.21–1.31) IRR(reg) = 0.97(0.46–2.01) Across all study groups All injury Low adherence tertile: 1 (reference) Medium: IRR = 0.97 (0.47–2.0) High: IRR = 0.44 (0.18–1.06) *Adjusted for cluster, age groups, level of play, and previous injury |
Waldén et al. 2012 [44] | Cluster RCT 1 season (8 months) Sweden | Soccer Female (12–17 years) 4,564 players IG: (n = 2,479, N = 121) CG: (n = 2,085, N = 109) | Soccer Time loss knee injuries: Acute onset Severe (>4 weeks time loss) ACL (physician +MRI) | NMT warm-up program (knee control and core stability) (2×/week) | Standard of practice | Acute IG (IR = 1.94) CG (IR = 0.67) Severe IG (IR = 1.05) CG (IR = 1.49) ACL IG (IR = 0.28) CG (IR = 0.67) | Acute IRR = 0.92 (0.61–1.4) Severe IRR = 0.7 (0.42–1.18) ACL IRR = 0.36 (0.15–0.85) |
Ice hockey | |||||||
Brunelle et al. 2005 [45] | Cohort study/season Canada | Minor hockey Bantam (ages 14–15) 2001/02 hockey season n = 52 teams | Any injuries that led players to seek medical advice or miss one game or one practice session on ice | League with Fair Play Program | No Fair Play Program | Number of injuries: n = 178 (57.4 %) IP Assumption ~18 players per team: IP = 178/936 *100 = 19.0 | Fair Play Program (FP) OR = 0.43 (0.11–1.47) |
Emery et al. 2008 [46] | Cohort study/season Canada | Youth ice hockey (11–12 years) IG: (n = 1,057, N = 78) CG: (n = 1,106 on 74 t) | Any ice hockey injury that requires medical attention and/or results in time loss from hockey Concussion based on international consensus management (2005) | Policy disallowing body checking in game play | Body checking allowed | No body checking All injury IR = 1.37(1.04–1.8) Concussion IR = 0.39(0.23–0.67) Body checking All injury IR = 4.2(3.49–5.07) Concussion IR = 1.47(1.08–1.99) | All injury IRR = 0.31 (0.22–0.43) Concussion IRR = 0.26 (0.13–0.52) |
Handball | |||||||
Olsen et al. 2005 [47] | Cluster RCT (8 months) Norway | Handball Male and female (15–17 years) IG (n = 959) CG (n = 79) | Handball injury requiring medical attention or time loss Acute—sudden onset Overuse—gradual onset | NMT program Wobble boards/balance mats (coach delivered 15 sessions then 1×/week) (running, landing technique, balance, strength, power) | Standard of practice | All injuries IG: 95 (9.9 %) CG: 167 (19 %) Acute knee injuries IG: 19 (2 %) CG: 38 (4.3 %) Acute ankle injuries IG: 28 (2.9 %) CG: 40 (4.6 %) | All injuries IRR = 0.49 (0.39—0.63) Acute knee/ankle injury IRR = 0.55 (0.39–0.79) Overuse injuries IRR = 0.43 (0.25–0.75) |
Wedderkopp et al. 1999 [48] | Cluster RCT (10 months) 3 tournaments Denmark | Handball Female (16–18 years) Players from 22 teams IG (n = 111) CG (n = 126) | Handball injury time loss or unable to participate without considerable discomfort | NMT program Ankle disk + warm-up including 2 or more functional activities for all major LE muscle groups | Standard of practice warm-up | IG: Game IR = 4.68 Practice IR = 0.34 CG: Game IR = 23.38 Practice IR = 1.17 | OR = 0.17(0.089–0.324) |
Wedderkopp et al. 2003 [49] | Cluster RCT 1 season (9 months) Europe | Handball Female (14–16 years) IG (n = 77, N = 8) CG (n = 86, N = 8) | Handball injury time loss or unable to participate without considerable discomfort | NMT program Ankle disk + warm-up including 2 or more functional activities for all major LE muscle groups | NMT program Warm-up including ≥2 functional activities LE muscle groups (No ankle disk) | IG Match IR = 2.4 Practice IR = 0.2 CG Match IR = 6.9 Practice IR = 0.6 | OR = 0.21(0.09–0.53) |
US Football | |||||||
Cahill et al. 1978 [50] | Cohort study 8 seasons USA | High School Football Male No conditioning n = 1,254 Conditioning n = 1,227 | Knee injury time loss ≥2 sessions | Total body conditioning (C) through cardiovascular stressing, acclimatization to heat, weight training, flexibility drills, and agility exercises | Standard of practice 4 years without conditioning (NC) | No of knee injuries: NCg: 85 Cg: 50 No of knee operations: NCg: 19 Cg: 7 | ↓ reported knee injuries: NCg: 85 Cg: 50 X2 = 0.01 ↓ reported knee injuries requiring surgery: NCg: 19 Cg: 7 X2 = 0.01 |
McHugh et al. 2007 [51] | Cohort study 3 seasons | US Football Male (15–18 years) 175 player-seasons N = 2 | Inversion ankle sprain | Balance training on a foam pad (5 min each leg, 5×/week for 4 weeks preseason and 2×/week for 9 weeks in the season) for low, moderate, and high risk players, no program for minimal risk players | Pre-intervention 107 player-seasons | Pre-intervention Minimal risk IR = 0.4 Low risk IR = 1.2 Moderate risk IR = 1.9 High risk IR = 5.7 Post-intervention Minimal risk IR = 0.8 Low risk IR = 0.4 Moderate risk IR = 0.6 High risk IR = 1.4 | Combined low, moderate, and high risk IRR = 0.23 (0.08–0.69) |
Mickel et al. 2002 [52] | RCT 1 season USA | High School Football Bracing group (n = 42) Taping group (n = 41) | Ankle sprain time loss injury | Ankles braced for every practice or game | Ankles taped for every practice or game | Ankle sprains : BG IR = 0.83 TG IR = 0.77 | No difference between groups Only three sprains per study group all Grade 1 |
Basketball | |||||||
Emery et al. 2007 [53] | Cluster RCT 1 season (18 weeks) Canada | Basketball Male and female (12–18 years) IG (n = 494, N = 47) CG (n = 426, N = 41) | Basketball injury requiring medical attention and/or time loss | NMT warm-up 10 min (aerobic, static, and dynamic stretch) + 5 min balance training with wobble board + 20 min home balance training program using a wobble board | The 10 min warm-up routine (aerobic, static, and dynamic stretch only) | All injury IG IR = 3.3 CG IR = 4.03 Acute injury: IG IR = 2.77 CG IR = 3.83 LE injury IG IR = 2.69 CG IR = 3.18 Ankle injury IG IR = 1.57 CG IR = 2.46 | All injury IRR = 0.8 (0.57–1.11) Acute injury IRR = 0.71 (0.5–0.99) LE injury IRR = 0.83 (0.57–1.19) |
Longo et al. 2012 [54] | Cluster RCT 1 season (9 months) Italy | Basketball
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |