To determine the barriers and facilitators of implementing two biomechanical devices among collegiate baseball pitchers and training staff during the summer league season.
A qualitative descriptive study, nested within a pilot feasibility study, was conducted. Convenience sampling was used to identify pitchers, coaches, and data coordinators from two teams involved in the parent pilot study. The biomechanical devices consisted of a wearable pitching sleeve that tracked workload and performance variables (i.e., pitch/throw counts, arm velocity, elbow varus torque), and a portable force plate that measured a counter movement jump task (i.e., jump height, ground reaction force, pressure asymmetries). The pitching sleeve was worn for throwing and pitching sessions, while pitchers performed three countermovement jumps on the force plate weekly. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation research (CFIR) was used to inform the interview guide development and analysis. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Trustworthiness was promoted through detailed audit trail of analytic decisions, field notes, and regular meetings with research team to discuss coding strategies. An initial abductive coding approach was performed to identify a priori CFIR domains to discern barriers and facilitators of using each biomechanical device. An inductive content analysis was then performed to differentiate barriers and facilitators
A total of 16 Collegiate baseball players (Age range: 19-22; Left-handed: 25%), coaches (n=3), and data coordinators (n=3) were recruited. Five themes emerged: data informed individualized training approaches; data comprehension and implementation; athlete-empowerment; injury prevention value; systemization and integration. Participants acknowledged difficulty with data interpretation and implementation (barrier) from the data interface to inform training adjustments and challenges in systemization of the devices into daily routines (barrier). However, players reported valuing the ability to individualize training loads during practice (facilitator), expressed new recognition of the interplay of performance parameters with injury prevention (facilitator), and an increase in self-inquiry and self-awareness (facilitator) following use of both devices.
Important facilitators were identified that could impact use of devices, including the ability to utilize novel technology to apply data informed individualization of training, appreciation for the potential to prevent injuries, and technological applications that empower the athlete to make training adjustments. In contrast, important barriers included a knowledge gap for data comprehension and implementation, and a lack of systemization and integration of new technology with existing technology that may increase user burden.
Understanding barriers and facilitators for devices that track training load and fatigue measures is important to inform training and injury prevention strategies that are athlete- and coach-informed. Balancing the need for individually athlete centered prescribed training regimens while also addressing knowledge gaps in technology or data system burden is important to ensure that these technologies are adapted with improved adherence.
Upper Extremity
Injury Prevention
