Search

Introduction: Injury surveillance studies in adolescent rugby show varied injury incidence and injury risk factors, supporting further exploration in this cohort.1 Focus on the tackle as the mechanism of injury has grown, with an introduction of lower tackle height in community games.2 Objectives: Describe injury incidence, site, mechanism, and severity in senior schoolboy rugby players in Leinster, Ireland. Study design: Prospective cohort study Methods: Leinster senior schoolboy rugby players competing in the 2022-23 season were recruited. Injury recording included site, mechanism and severity following rugby injury surveillance consensus statements (3). Match frequency and training duration were recorded to calculate exposure.3 Data were collected in Kitman Lab's Athlete application. Results: 297 participants (median age 17 years (IQR:16-17), mean height 181±6 cm, median weight 80.2kg (IQR:73.1-90.1)) in nine schools provided data over 24 weeks. 73 injuries (51 match, 22 training) were reported. Match injury incidence (per 1000 player hours) was 25.8 (95% confidence interval (CI):19.2-33.9), and training injury incidence was 1.2 (95% CI:0.5-1.1). Match injury severity was a median time-loss of 27 days (95% CI:22.4-33), and a median of 18 days (95% CI:12-33) for training injuries. Most common reported match injury sites included head (n=15, 29%) and shoulder (n=11, 22%), and training injury sites were shoulder (n=6, 27%) and ankle (n=5, 23%). The tackle was the most common mechanism of injury (tackling n=19, 26%; tackled n=17, 23%). Conclusions: Match injury incidence was lower in Leinster schoolboys than a recent meta-analysis (39.76; 95% CI:10.18- 69.33), but similar to a previous season (2019-2020) in Leinster (SCRUm phase 1). Most common regions injured were similar across both phases and to other youth rugby studies (1). Similar to other studies, the tackle is the most common mechanism of injury (1). This research was funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Management of training load (TL) including contact load, are receiving increased attention in relation to injury risk, but few studies have explored TL in adolescent rugby players and its link to injury.1 Objectives: * Monitor TL in senior schoolboy rugby players in Leinster, Ireland. * Explore relationship between TL and injury risk. Study design: Prospective cohort study Methods: Leinster senior schoolboy rugby players competing in the 2022-23 season were recruited. Injury recording followed rugby injury surveillance consensus statements.2 Training load was calculated using duration (minutes) multiplied by intensity (rate of perceived exertion) and reported as an arbitrary unit (AU) of load.1 Data were collected in Kitman Lab's Athlete application. Mean weekly TL categories included <500, 500 to <750, 750 to <1000, 1000 to <1250 and >1250 AUs. Adjusted logistic regression models, accounting for the correlation between players within schools, were used to explore potential relationships between player characteristics, training type, and TL and odds of an injury. Missing RPE data was imputed where possible, from team mean & median RPE or the previous session RPE. Results: 273 participants (mean age 17±2 years, height 181±6 cm, weight 82±13 kg) from eight schools provided data over 24 weeks. 61 players reported an injury during the season. 5614 training sessions were recorded. Adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed higher odds ratios (OR) for sustaining an injury, with mean weekly TL<500 AUs (OR:1.2, 95%CI:0.14-10.6) or higher than 750 to <1000 (OR:9.1, 95%CI:1.33-61.6), 1000 to <1250 (OR:18.2, 95%CI:1.1-294.3) and >1250 AUs (OR:63.4, 95%CI: 3.1-1288.1); in comparison to 500 to <750 AUs (reference value). Conclusions: A quadratic relationship between TL and injury was evident, with lower risk of injury associated with mean weekly 500 to <750 AUs, compared to higher or lower TL. This research was funded by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimIntegrated multidisciplinary primary healthcare is still in a relatively early stage of development in Ireland, with significant restructuring occurring in the past decade. Musculoskeletal physiotherapy services traditionally provided in acute hospital settings have been relocated into the primary care setting where the physiotherapist works as part of the multidisciplinary team. This study aimed to explore physiotherapy managers’ experiences of managing musculoskeletal physiotherapy services in primary care to gain an insight into the opportunities and challenges in service delivery, changing roles and ongoing professional development needs of staff.ParticipantsQualitative design using semi-structured interviews with primary care physiotherapy managers in the Republic of Ireland was employed.ResultsFive interviews took in a mix of rural and urban areas nationally. The relationship with the GP was an important one in musculoskeletal physiotherapy services in primary care. Physiotherapists were well skilled but opportunities for professional and career development were restricted. Methods of optimising resources in the face of staffing restrictions were identified. Whilst there were many examples of innovations in service delivery, various barriers negatively impacted on optimal service including resource constraints and national strategy.ConclusionsA number of factors that impact on musculoskeletal service delivery in primary care from the perspective of physiotherapy managers were identified in this study. Future research should explore the views of other stakeholders to provide a more thorough understanding of the relevant issues affecting musculoskeletal physiotherapy service provision in primary care in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To explore the barriers and enablers to providing and receiving primary care for osteoarthritis (OA) in Ireland from the perspectives of primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) and individuals with OA., Design: Descriptive qualitative study incorporating an inductive thematic analysis to identify key barrier and enabler themes and subsequent deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)., Setting: Primary care in Ireland., Participants: HCPs, including 6 general practitioners, 5 physiotherapists, 1 occupational therapist and 1 practice nurse, and 13 individuals with OA were interviewed., Results: Identified barriers and enablers related to nine domains of the TDF. Key barriers identified by HCPs included limited and delayed access to multidisciplinary primary care services, lack of integrated care pathways specific to OA and insufficient training in musculoskeletal conditions including OA. Individuals with OA also reported poor access to health services due to long waiting lists, lack of education on OA and feelings of not being taken seriously by HCPs. There is a need for targeted HCP education and training to address the identified knowledge, skills and confidence gaps in communication, diagnosis and evidence-based management of OA. Improved management of OA through system-level changes, including integrated care pathways with multidisciplinary services to better support individuals with OA in the community, is required., Conclusions: This study identified several barriers and enablers to the management of OA. These findings highlight areas to be targeted by future interventions aimed at improving the management of OA in primary care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)