Objectives To (1) identify the wearable devices and associated metrics used to monitor workload and assess injury risk, (2) describe the situations in which workload was monitored using wearable technology (including sports, purpose of the analysis, location and duration of monitoring, and athlete characteristics), and (3) evaluate the quality of evidence that workload monitoring can inform injury prevention. Design Scoping review. Literature Search We searched the CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. Study Selection Criteria We included all studies that used wearable devices (eg, heart rate monitor, inertial measurement units, global positioning system) to monitor athlete workload in a team sport setting. Data Synthesis We provided visualizations that represented the workload metrics reported, sensors used, sports investigated, athlete characteristics, and the duration of monitoring. Results The 407 included studies focused on team ball sports (67% soccer, rugby, or Australian football), male athletes (81% of studies), elite or professional level of competition (74% of studies), and young adults (69% of studies included athletes aged between 20 and 28 years). Thirty-six studies of 7 sports investigated the association between workload measured with wearable devices and injury. Conclusion Distance-based metrics derived from global positioning system units were common for monitoring workload and are frequently used to assess injury risk. Workload monitoring studies have focused on specific populations (eg, elite male soccer players in Europe and elite male rugby and Australian football players in Oceania). Different injury definitions and reported workload metrics and poor study quality impeded conclusions regarding the relationship between workload and injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(10):549–563. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9753
