Search

Background: The United States military strives to prepare soldiers physically and mentally for war while preventing injury and attrition. Previous research has focused on physical injury risk factors but has not prospectively examined psychological risk factors., Purpose: This study's purpose was to investigate whether self-efficacy is a risk factor for musculoskeletal injury in an initial military training environment and compare it to other known risk factors., Study Design: Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study., Materials and Methods: Shortly after starting cadet basic training, new cadets rated self-efficacy by an 11-point questionnaire. Other risk factor data including injury history, sex, height, weight, body mass index, age, aerobic fitness, upper body muscular endurance, core muscular endurance and previous military experience were collected by self-report questionnaire and military fitness testing. The primary dependent variable was musculoskeletal injury that originated during the seven-week course. Independent variables were compared between participants who were and were not injured using Chi-squared test, t-tests, Cox regression analysis and time to injury was evaluated using Kaplan-Meyer survival analyses., Results: Seven hundred eighty-one (65.1%) new cadets were eligible and consented to participate. Injured cadets had significantly lower self-efficacy scores (p=0.003 and p=<0.001), shorter height (p=<0.001), lower weight (p=0.036), lower push-up and plank performance (p=<0.001), slower two-mile run performance (p=<0.001), and females sustained a proportionally higher number of injuries than males (p=<0.001). Cadets with low self-efficacy, shorter height, lower hand release push-up performance, lower plank performance and slower two-mile run performance were at greater risk for musculoskeletal injury. Cadets with less self-efficacy were also less likely to continue uninjured throughout cadet basic training according to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log rank test<0.002). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that only aerobic fitness predicted musculoskeletal injury (HR=1.005 [1.003-1.006], p=<0.001)., Conclusions: Participants with less self-efficacy sustained injuries earlier and more often than those with greater self-efficacy. However, aerobic fitness alone predicted future injury after controlling for all risk factors. Resolved prior injury was not a risk factor for future injury., Level of Evidence 2b: Individual cohort study., (© The Author(s).)

Abstract: Scott, KM, Kreisel, BR, Florkiewicz, EM, Crowell, MS, Morris, JB, McHenry, PA, and Benedict, TM. The effect of cautionary versus resiliency spine education on maximum deadlift performance and back beliefs: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e341-e348, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cautionary information about the spine vs. a message of spine resiliency on maximum deadlift (MDL) performance and beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine. This cluster randomized control trial involved 903 military new cadets (n = 903) during their mandatory fitness test in cadet basic training (mean age 18.3 years, body mass index 23.8 kg·m-2, 22% female). Subjects were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The cautionary group received a message warning them to protect their backs while deadlifting, the resiliency group received a message encouraging confidence while deadlifting, and the control group received the standardized Army deadlift education only. The outcome measures were MDL weight lifted and perceived spine vulnerability. Significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. There were no between-group differences in weight lifted (p=0.40). Most subjects believed that the spine is vulnerable to injury. Three times as many subjects who received the resiliency education improved their beliefs about the vulnerability of their spines compared with those receiving the cautionary education (p<0.001). This study demonstrated the potential for brief resiliency education to positively influence beliefs about spine vulnerability, whereas cautionary education did not impair performance., (Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)