BackgroundParticipation in youth soccer carries a significant risk of injury, most commonly non-contact injuries of the lower extremity. A growing body of research supports the use of neuromuscular interventions by teams to prevent such injuries, yet the uptake of these recommendations by soccer teams remains largely unexplored. The purposes of the study were to determine (1) the level of awareness by youth coaches of injury prevention programs and their efficacy; (2) the number of youth coaches that use these interventions; and (3) barriers and potential facilitators to implementing a sustainable injury prevention program.MethodsFour hundred eighteen coaches of male and female youth soccer teams were emailed an online blinded survey. This survey consisted of 26 questions covering coaches’ demographics, level of training, experience with injuries among players, and use of injury prevention programs. Question development was guided by the RE-AIM Sports Setting Matrix in combination with findings from the literature review and expert experience from orthopaedic surgeons specializing in sport medicine.ResultsOf the 418 coaches contacted, 101 responded. Only 29.8% of respondents used an injury prevention program in the prior soccer season. Coaches that had completed one or more coaching courses were more likely to use an intervention. Of those that did not already use an intervention, coaches agreed or strongly agreed that they would consider using one if it could be used in place of the warm up and take no more than 20 min (74.0%), if they could access information about the exercises (84.0%), and if the exercises could be properly demonstrated (84.0%). Additionally, 84% of coaches that did not already use an intervention agreed or strongly agreed that knowing that interventions may reduce a player’s risk of injury by 45% would affect whether they would use one.ConclusionThis study suggests that the current use and awareness of injury prevention programs is limited by a lack of communication and education between sporting associations and coaches, as well as perceived time constraints. The results also suggest that improving coaching education of injury prevention could increase the frequency of intervention use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40634-018-0160-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Physical inactivity is associated with increased health risks. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to support increased physical activity (PA) levels through screening and provision of PA prescriptions. However, PCP counseling on PA is not common. Objective This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support PA counseling by PCPs and estimate intervention effectiveness on patients’ PA levels. Methods A pragmatic pilot study was conducted using a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The study was conducted at a single primary care clinic, with 4 pre-existing PCP teams. Adult patients who had a periodic health review (PHR) scheduled during the study period were invited to participate. The eHealth tool involved an electronic survey sent to participants before their PHR via an email or a tablet; data were used to automatically produce tailored resources and a PA prescription in the electronic medical record of participants in the intervention arm. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care from their PCP. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of completed surveys and patient-reported acceptability and fidelity measures. The primary effectiveness outcome was patient-reported PA at 4 months post-PHR, measured as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week. Secondary outcomes assessed determinants of PA, including self-efficacy and intention to change based on the Health Action Process Approach behavior change theory. Results A total of 1028 patients receiving care from 34 PCPs were invited to participate and 530 (51.55%) consented (intervention [n=296] and control [n=234]). Of the participants who completed a process evaluation, almost half (88/178, 49.4%) stated they received a PA prescription, with only 42 receiving the full intervention including tailored resources from their PCP. A cluster-level linear regression analysis yielded a non–statistically significant positive difference in MET-minutes reported per week at follow-up between intervention and control conditions (mean difference 1027; 95% CI −155 to 2209; P=.09). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our results suggest that it is feasible to build an eHealth tool that screens and provides tailored resources for PA in a primary care setting but suboptimal intervention fidelity suggests greater work must be done to address PCP barriers to resource distribution. Participant responses to the primary effectiveness outcome (MET-minutes) were highly variable, reflecting a need for more robust measures of PA in future trials to address limitations in patient-reported data. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03181295; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181295

No abstract