Perceptions, facilitators, and barriers regarding use of the injury prevention exercise programme Knee Control among players and coaches in youth floorball: a cross-sectional survey study

Abstract

Background Youth participation in team ball sports is associated with a risk of both acute and gradual onset injuries but today there are several efficacious injury prevention exercise programmes (IPEPs). However, there is limited research about how to implement those programmes and the perceived barriers and facilitators among end-users. Objective To investigate perceptions of the IPEP Knee Control and facilitators and barriers to programme use among coaches and youth floorball players, and explore factors associated with planned maintenance of Knee Control. Methods This cross-sectional study is a sub-analysis of data from the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Perceptions about Knee Control and facilitators and barriers to programme use were evaluated with surveys pre-intervention and post-season. 246 youth floorball players aged 12–17 years, and 35 coaches that reported no use of IPEPs during the preceding year were included. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression models were undertaken with the dependent variables: coaches’ planned maintenance and players’ opinions of maintenance of Knee Control. Independent variables were perceptions, facilitators and barriers regarding use of Knee Control and other potential influencing factors. Results 88% of the players believed that Knee Control can reduce injury risk. Common facilitators to Knee Control use among coaches were support, education and high player motivation, and common barriers were that injury prevention training was time-consuming, lack of space to execute the exercises and lack of player motivation. Players who planned to maintain use of Knee Control had higher outcome expectancies and belief in one’s ability to use Knee Control (action self-efficacy). Coaches who planned to maintain Knee Control had higher action self-efficacy and to a lesser extent considered that Knee Control takes too much time. Conclusions Support, education, and high player motivation are key facilitators, while lack of time and space for injury prevention training and boring exercises are key barriers for coaches and players to use Knee Control. High action self-efficacy among coaches and players seems to be a prerequisite for maintained use of IPEPs.

Players are positive regarding injury prevention exercise programmes, but coaches need ongoing support: a survey-based evaluation using the Health Action Process Approach model across one season in amateur and youth football

“…Argumentation away from standardised intervention approaches has also been published elsewhere. 33 Considering that the results of the present study are comparable with previous studies in the realworld outside the controlled context of a randomised trial, 9 regarding the 11 + 18 and in youth floorball, 26 the results may probably be generalisable to other team sports and IPEPs.…”

Motivation and goal-pursuit for injury prevention training in amateur football coaches: a cross-sectional study using the Health Action Process Approach

“…Similar, but not identical, questions had been used in previous studies with Knee Control / extended Knee Control . 16 17 The questions from HAPA were influenced by a study by McKay et al , 13 but adapted to the Swedish context and to Knee Control+ . Both phases of HAPA were covered for coaches who had adopted the programme, whereas coaches who had not adopted the programme only received questions related to the motivational phase.…”

“…Third, the questionnaire was not fully validated, even though we argue that it has face validity since similar questions have been used in previous studies. [13][14][15][16] It is unclear whether this kind of broadly scoped questionnaire with only one or two questions per construct is optimal to cover the HAPA constructs or whether other targeted approaches, such as using a validated self-efficacy scale to evaluate self-efficacy beliefs, are better suited. Additionally, these single-construct questions have fewer points of discrimination and their internal consistency cannot be determined.…”

If we build it together, will they use it? A mixed-methods study evaluating the implementation of Prep-to-Play PRO: an injury prevention programme for women’s elite Australian Football

“…39 Sport-governing bodies need to support coaches and other programme deliverers throughout the entire implementation and maintenance process. 40 Targeted solutions are needed to educate and support sustained programme adoption and implementation among new coaches, deliverers and athletes. Stakeholder partnership is a great place to start, but staff turnover may lead to the people originally involved no longer being in place, and presents the problem of engaging new staff and getting their investment.…”