Motor competency is integral to the long-term athletic development of youths. Strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches are recommended to deliver motor competency interventions, yet no studies have investigated their perceptions and practices for developing motor competency in youths. Sixty-seven male, and 4 female S&C coaches completed an initial and follow up questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale, rating 1] the importance of developing competence, and 2] how frequently they developed competence across 90 motor competencies. Over 55% of S&C coaches reported a broad range of "important" (69/90) and "frequently developed" (48/90) motor competencies. The most important motor competency was "deceleration" (4.9 ± 0.3), whilst "hip hinge (bilateral)" was the most practised (4.4 ± 0.5). S&C coaches targeted upper body pushing and pulling competencies more than their perceived importance, whilst agility (e.g., turning) competencies were targeted less than their importance. Further analysis showed S&C coaches who delivered 3-4 sessions per week targeted 15-18% more competencies compared to ≤ 2 sessions per week. Overall, these findings have strong implications for youth motor competency development including the reflection of important vs. practised competencies, coach education programmes, and consideration for how S&C coaches should seek to optimise motor competency development within youths.

No abstract

Physical education (PE) teachers and strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches are well placed to develop motor competence within youth populations. However, both groups’ perceptions of important motor competencies are relatively unknown, especially when considering stage of maturity. Therefore, this study aimed to 1) present PE teachers and S&C coaches’ perceptions of motor competence importance according to stage of maturity; 2) compare perceptions of motor competence between stages of maturity, and between PE teachers and S&C coaches; and 3) explore factors that influence PE teachers and S&C coaches’ perceptions of motor competence importance. Via a mixed-method questionnaire, 47 PE teachers (professional experience = 10.3±6.6 years) and 48 S&C coaches (professional experience = 8.6±4.8 years) rated the importance of developing 21 motor competencies across four stages of maturity (childhood, pre-peak height velocity [PHV], circa-PHV, and post-PHV) using a Likert-scale (1 = not important, 5 = very important). Participants also provided open-ended explanations for their perceptions. Frequency analysis indicated that participants rated a broad range of competencies important, with S&C coaches rating more competencies important than PE teachers across all stages of maturity. Mixed-model analysis highlighted several differences in motor competence importance when comparing perceptions between participant groups, and between stages of maturity for PE teachers and S&C coaches. For example, S&C coaches rated strength-based motor competencies less important during childhood (d = -1.83 to -0.43), while PE teachers rated them less important during childhood (d = -2.22 to -0.42) and pre-PHV (d = -1.70 to -0.51) compared to other stages of maturity. Codebook thematic analysis showed several factors that influenced participant’s perceptions of motor competence importance (e.g., participants understanding of themselves). The findings suggest that multiple environments may be required to adequately facilitate motor competence development amongst youth. Coach education should target misunderstandings around the risks of strength-based activity during early stages of maturity and the benefits of developing strength-based motor competencies across youth populations.

Background Participation in sport is a popular pastime for children and adolescents that improves their physical health, mental health and motor skills. Musculoskeletal injuries are a relatively common downside of sports participation and can have negative long-term consequences. Injury prevention programmes have demonstrated effectiveness in child and adolescent sports, provided compliance is adequate. However, little is known about the factors which relate to their impact on the wider community and whether the prevention programmes have been adopted and maintained in the long-term. The objective of this review was to assess the current literature on exercise-based injury prevention interventions in child and adolescent sports (aged under 19 years) against the ‘Reach’, ‘Effectiveness’, ‘Adoption’, ‘Implementation’, ‘Maintenance’ (RE-AIM) framework and Consensus of Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), to ascertain level of reporting for the components which relate to external validity. Methods Seven electronic databases; PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and The Cochrane Library, were searched from date of inception to July 2022 using the themes of: ‘Child and Adolescent’, ‘Sport’, ‘Injury’ and ‘Prevention’. Eligibility criteria included: Experimental trial design, exercise-based intervention programmes, primary outcome of injury incidence and participants aged under 19 years. Two reviewers assessed each trial independently against the RE-AIM model dimension items checklist (RE-AIM MDIC) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) before reaching a consensus on reporting. Results Forty-five unique trials met the eligibility criteria. Mean reporting level for all studies across the whole RE-AIM MDIC was 31% (SD ± 16.2%, Range 7–77%). The domain of ‘effectiveness’ was the most comprehensively reported (60%), followed by ‘implementation’ (48%), ‘reach’ (38%), ‘adoption’ (26%) and ‘maintenance’ (7%). The mean reporting score for the CERT was 50% (SD ± 20.8, range 0–81%). Conclusion Published data on injury prevention in child and adolescent sports is highly focussed on the effectiveness of the intervention, with little consideration given to how it will be adopted and maintained in the long-term. This has led to considerable gaps in knowledge regarding optimal programme implementation, with a lack of data on adoption and maintenance contributing to the gap between research and practice. Future research needs to place greater focus on external validity and consider incorporating the study of implementation and feasibility as part of effectiveness trial design. This approach should provide the data that will help narrow the considerable gap between science and practice. Trial registration PROSPERO Registration number CRD42021272847.