Sports-related workload and injury risk: simply knowing the risks will not prevent injuries: Narrative review

Abstract

Training loads contribute to sports injury risk but their mitigation has rarely been considered in a sports injury prevention framework. A key concept behind monitoring training loads for injury prevention is to screen for those at increased risk of injury so that workloads can be adjusted to minimise these risks. This review describes how advances in management of workload can be applied as a preventive measure. Primary prevention involves screening for preparticipation load risk factors, such as low training loads, prior to a training period or competition. Secondary prevention involves screening for workloads that are known to precede an injury developing so that modification can be undertaken to mitigate this risk. Tertiary prevention involves rehabilitation practices that include a graded return to training programme to reduce the risk of sustaining a subsequent injury. The association of training loads with injury incidence is now established. Prevention measures such as rule changes that affect the workload of an athlete are universal whereas those that address risk factors of an asymptomatic subgroup are more selective. Prevention measures, when implemented for asymptomatic individuals exhibiting possible injury risk factors, are indicated for an athlete at risk of developing a sports injury. Seven key indicated risks and associated prevention measures are proposed.

Effectiveness of online tailored advice to prevent running-related injuries and promote preventive behaviour in Dutch trail runners: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

“…Blinding of participants was not possible because of the impossibility to develop a sham intervention mimicking the online tailored intervention evaluated in this study. Because the effects of the intervention included primary, secondary and tertiary prevention,24 specific effects on each prevention level might be latent in the results. However, this study had no sufficient power for a subgroup analysis in order to investigate the effects of the intervention in each level of prevention.…”

“…During the follow-up, tailored advice was delivered based on the RRI classification generated by the OSTRC questionnaire, that is, (1) no RRI, (2) non-substantial RRI or (3) substantial RRI (defined as RRIs resulting in moderate or major reductions in training volume, moderate or major reductions in running performance or complete inability to run) 11 12 23. Participants who reported no RRI received advice aimed at maintaining their uninjured status (ie, primary prevention24). Participants who reported non-substantial RRIs received tailored advice aimed at promoting a fast recovery and to prevent the non-substantial RRI to become a substantial RRI (ie, secondary prevention24).…”

“…Participants who reported no RRI received advice aimed at maintaining their uninjured status (ie, primary prevention24). Participants who reported non-substantial RRIs received tailored advice aimed at promoting a fast recovery and to prevent the non-substantial RRI to become a substantial RRI (ie, secondary prevention24). Participants who reported substantial RRIs received tailored advice in order to prevent further consequences (ie, long-term burden and prolonged absence from running), permanent damage due to RRIs and subsequent RRIs (ie, tertiary prevention24).…”

A Profile of Injuries Sustained by Law Enforcement Officers: A Critical Review

“…In addition, by knowing the mechanism of an injury, targeted injury prevention strategies, like pre-conditioning (e.g., strengthening exercises) [8] or other reduction methods (e.g., changing a floor surface) [9] can be applied. These approaches will in turn may have an impact on injury incidence and reducing injury severity [10]. Therefore, the aim of this critical narrative review was to identify, critically appraise and synthesize key findings from recent literature investigating musculoskeletal injuries in the law enforcement profession, in order to develop a profile of the injuries experienced by this unique population.…”

Injury rate and patterns of Sydney grade cricketers: a prospective study of injuries in 408 cricketers

“…Even fielding positions can generate different workload profiles, as the relatively sedentary slip fielder is unlikely to generate as high a workload on average compared with the more athletic cover fielder or boundary rider. The link between workload fluctuations and injury has been well documented,37 51 and is considered a surrogate for development of overuse injuries 52. At the subelite or junior level, where the fitness and conditioning may not be comparable to elite cricketers, workload fluctuations may result in high IRs as reflected in the results of this study.…”