No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPhysical activity plays an important role in public health, owing to a range of health-related benefits that it provides. Sports-related injuries are known to be an important barrier to continued physical activity. Still, the prevalence of injuries on a general population level has not yet been explored in a descriptive epidemiological investigation. The purpose of the questionnaire-based study, therefore, was to describe the prevalence of injury in a representative sample of the Danish population.MethodsTwo samples of 10,000 adults (> 15 years) and 6500 children and adolescents (7–15 years) were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire. Of these, 3498 adults (35.0%) and 3221 children (49.6%) responded successfully. The definition of sports injury was time-loss and medical attention-based, inhibiting participants from sports activity for at least 7 days, and/or involved contact with a healthcare professional, respectively.ResultsAmongst adults, 642 (18.4% [95%CI: 17.1%; 19.6%]) reported to have had an injury within the past 12 months. Males reported significantly more injuries than females (difference in prevalence proportion: 9.2%-points [95%CI: 6.7%-points; 11.8%-points]). The prevalence of injuries was greatest in running (ninj = 198), football (ninj = 94) and strength training (ninj = 89).Amongst children, 621 (19.3% [95%CI: 17.9%; 20.6%]) had been injured. No difference in injury prevalence proportion existed between boys and girls. The prevalence of injuries was greatest in football (ninj = 235), handball (ninj = 86) and gymnastics (ninj = 66).ConclusionsSports injuries seem to be very frequent in Denmark, since a total of 18.4% of the adults and 19.3% of the children reported having had one or more injuries within the past 12 months, equal to either time lost with physical activity and/or contact to the health care system.

BackgroundIn randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials—compliance with the intervention—is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention.MethodsData from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within ±10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up.ResultsIn the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively.ConclusionThe proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met.

IntroductionRunning injuries affect millions of persons every year and have become a substantial public health issue owing to the popularity of running. To ensure adherence to running, it is important to prevent injuries and to have an in-depth understanding of the aetiology of running injuries. The main purpose of the present paper was to describe the design of a future prospective cohort study exploring if a dose–response relationship exists between changes in training load and running injury occurrence, and how this association is modified by other variables.Methods and analysisIn this protocol, the design of an 18-month observational prospective cohort study is described that will include a minimum of 20 000 consenting runners who upload their running data to Garmin Connect and volunteer to be a part of the study. The primary outcome is running-related injuries categorised into the following states: (1) no injury; (2) a problem; and (3) injury. The primary exposure is change in training load (eg, running distance and the cumulative training load based on the number of strides, ground contact time, vertical oscillation and body weight). The change in training load is a time-dependent exposure in the sense that progression or regression can change many times during follow-up. Effect-measure modifiers include, but is not limited to, other types of sports activity, activity of daily living and demographics, and are assessed through questionnaires and/or by Garmin devices.Ethics and disseminationThe study design, procedures and informed consent have been evaluated by the Ethics Committee of the Central Denmark Region (Request number: 227/2016 – Record number: 1-10-72-189-16).