Purpose Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies. Methods A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners’ adoption of injury focused technologies. Conclusions Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.

No abstract

PurposeUnderstanding users’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of technologies will influence their adoption and sustained use. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the barriers and facilitators to their use of injury focused wearable technologies.MethodsA qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n=13) and female (n=14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed.ResultsExcessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and attachment method of a wearable device and the design of a smartphone application were identified as important barriers and facilitators, with receiving useful injury-related feedback identified as a further facilitator.ConclusionsOvertraining, training-related and individual- related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence- based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.

Purpose Continuous and long-term prospective monitoring of athletes in natural training environments is essential to provide further clarity on the risk factors for running-related injuries. However, participant recruitment and retention can be problematic. This study aimed to identify factors for facilitating the recruitment and retention of recreational runners in prospective, longitudinal running-related injury research involving running technologies. Methods Twenty-seven recreational runners (14 female, 13 male) participated across nine semi-structured focus groups. Focus groups were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken, with a critical friend approach taken to enhance reliability. Results Incentives, recruiting suitable participants, ease of use of running technologies, an appropriate research design, and good communication practices will facilitate recruitment and retention. Conclusion Receiving study outputs, evidence-based information and undergoing laboratory testing were identified as incentives, however, researchers need to consider whether these may influence participant behaviour and adversely bias the findings of their study. Researchers should offer participants an option with regard to the type, content, frequency and mode of delivery of incentives and communication. Appealing to potential participants’ personal interests will facilitate initial recruitment, while attempts to ‘feed’ this interest throughout the course of a study will enhance retention. Employing a user-friendly smartphone app and unobtrusive sensor(s), and a research study that can work with runners’ training schedules and technology usage habits, will further facilitate their recruitment and retention.