Search

Objective To identify the role of sports physical therapists (PT) in the organization of injury registration and preseason assessment, applied in athletic organizations and sports teams of different gender and level world-wide. Design cross-sectional study. Setting LimeSurvey platform. Participants Sports PTs working with athletes invited through International Federation of Sports Physical Therapy. Main outcome measures injury registration and athlete's screening. Results 414 sports PTs participated in this international survey (mean age of 37.66 (SD = 9.38) years). 340 participants indicated that the PT as the responsible for injury registration. Barriers to properly register injury throughout the season were indicated by 157 sports PT and 86 (54.77%) indicated a lack of time on their routine as the main factor. 93 participants (30.09%) indicated that they customize the prevention program based on the preseason assessment. Sports PTs who reported not performing a preseason assessment (92 participants - 22.22%) mainly indicated this to be consequence of lack of structure in the organization (44 participants – 47.82%). Conclusion The majority of the sports PTs participate on injury registration and perform preseason assessment in athletes. However, lack of time in their routine and structure in the organization were recognized as the most important barriers to organize these properly.

Objective To identify the role of sports physical therapists (PT) in the injury prevention process and to compare the structure of preventive programs and associated (organization) policies applied in athletic organizations and sports teams of varying gender and level world-wide. Design: cross-sectional study. Setting LimeSurvey platform. Participants Sports PT working with athletes invited through the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapy. Main outcome measures Sports injury prevention program (IPP) structure and implementation. Results 414 participants fully participate in this survey study. Athlete's injury history (68.84%), the most common injuries within the sport modality (67.87%) and athlete's preseason screening results (64.01%) were most frequently used to customize IPPs. Warm-up (70.04%) and individually PT-guided exercise-therapy (70.04%) were the preferred methods to organize the prevention routine. The main barrier for IPP implementation was lack of time within the athlete's weekly training schedule (66.66%). The majority of the participants (72.84%) reported to evaluate the perception of IPP's effect by comparing current and preceding seasons' injury occurrences. Conclusion These survey results are the first identifying contemporary sports injury prevention organization and implementation policies on an international level. This information might support the sports PT community in improving and standardizing IPP (implementation) strategies worldwide.

Objective: To provide consensus on how to plan, organize and implement exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) in sports. Design: Delphi. Setting: LimeSurvey platform. Participants: Experienced sports physical therapists from the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapy member countries. Main outcome measures: Factors related to sports IPP planning, organization and implementation. Results: We included 305 participants from 32 countries. IPP planning should be based on an athlete's injury history, on pre-season screening results, and on injury rates (respectively, 98%, 92%, 89% agreement). In total 97% participants agreed that IPP organization should depend on the athlete's age, 93% on the competition level, and 93% on the availability of low-cost materials. It was agreed that IPP should mainly be implemented in warm-up sessions delivered by the head or strength/conditioning coach, with physical training sessions and individual physical therapy sessions (respectively, 94%, 92%, 90% agreement). Conclusion: Strong consensus was reached on (1) IPP based on the athlete's injury history, pre-season screening and evidence-based sports-specific injury rates; (2) IPP organization based on the athlete's age, competition level, and the availability of low-cost materials and (3) IPP implementation focussing on warm-up sessions implemented by the strength/conditioning coach, and/or individual prevention sessions by the physical therapist. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Objective: To provide consensus on how to plan, organize and implement exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) in sports. Design: Delphi. Setting: LimeSurvey platform. Participants: Experienced sports physical therapists from the International Federation of Sports Physical Therapy member countries. Main outcome measures: Factors related to sports IPP planning, organization and implementation. Results: We included 305 participants from 32 countries. IPP planning should be based on an athletes injury history, on pre-season screening results, and on injury rates (respectively, 98%, 92%, 89% agreement). In total 97% participants agreed that IPP organization should depend on the athletes age, 93% on the competition level, and 93% on the availability of low-cost materials. It was agreed that IPP should mainly be implemented in warm-up sessions delivered by the head or strength/conditioning coach, with physical training sessions and individual physical therapy sessions (respectively, 94%, 92%, 90% agreement). Conclusion: Strong consensus was reached on (1) IPP based on the athletes injury history, pre-season screening and evidence-based sports-specific injury rates; (2) IPP organization based on the athletes age, competition level, and the availability of low-cost materials and (3) IPP implementation focussing on warm-up sessions implemented by the strength/conditioning coach, and/or individual prevention sessions by the physical therapist., Funding Agencies: This work has been supported by grants from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES - Brazil; finance code 0001).

Hamstring function is influenced by a number of neural, architectural and morphological factors, and the adaptability of these characteristics has important implications for optimizing performance and reducing injury risk. High rates of maximal or near-maximal hamstring force development are required to generate peak horizontal velocities during running, and this is largely determined by the extent to which these muscles can be voluntarily activated. Greater eccentric hamstring strength also correlates with better acceleration capacity and likely improves the ability to decelerate the lower limb during the presumably injurious terminal swing phase of high-speed running. The intra- and intermuscular coordination of the hamstrings appears to influence both hamstring muscle fatiguability and the risk of muscle strain injury. Muscle volume and architectural features such as fascicle length and pennation angle also influence hamstring function, and these vary considerably between hamstring muscles, between individuals and with training status. The adaptability of these features has been explored to a significant extent in recent times, and careful exercise selection allows selective targeting of individual hamstring muscles or muscle segments and this appears to influence the pattern of chronic adaptations such as muscle hypertrophy. Short fascicles within the often-injured long head of biceps femoris may predispose athletes to strain injury but these appear to respond in a contraction-mode-specific manner; lengthening after eccentric training and shortening after concentric training of 4 or more weeks. Conventional training with eccentric and concentric phases in each repetition can also lengthen fascicles, possibly in an excursion (muscle length)-dependent manner. A large biceps femoris muscle to proximal aponeurosis width ratio has been proposed as a potential risk factor for hamstring strain injury, although this is only supported by biomechanical modelling at the ti