Injury Prevention in Youth Sport


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].

A316441_1_En_15_Fig1_HTML.gif


Fig. 15.1
Responsibility for sport injury prevention (Emery et al. [30] reproduced with permission)

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) [3464]. Seventeen studies are RCTs with the remainder being primarily quasi-experimental (non-randomized experimental design) and cohort studies [3464]. 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 [3444, 4751, 53, 54, 56, 5861, 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, 6591].


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

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Oct 16, 2016 | Posted by in SPORT MEDICINE | Comments Off on Injury Prevention in Youth Sport

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access