File
Singh V1, Trewartha G1, Stokes K1, McKay C1
1University of Bath, Health, Bath, United Kingdom
Background: Shoulder injuries are amongst the most common and severe injuries sustained by youth rugby players. Although numerous injury prevention exercise programmes (IPEP) are used in sport with clear injury risk reductions, there is no IPEP specifically designed to reduce shoulder injuries in rugby. Furthermore, IPEPs suffer from poor adoption across sport settings.
Purpose: To describe the effectiveness of, and adherence to, a shoulder-specific IPEP for youth rugby players. Players' and coaches' attitudes towards injury prevention were also assessed.
Methods: Three community rugby union clubs (u-14 to u-18 age groups) in the south of England agreed to participate (players: n=51, coaches: n=7). Two teams were randomly allocated to the Rugby Active Shoulder Injury Programme (RASIP) and one to the FIFA 11+ intervention (a non-shoulder-specific IPEP comparator) using block randomisation. The RASIP was developed following a literature review, and feedback from stakeholders and a multidisciplinary technical project group. At baseline, the delivery agent (coach or a designate player) was coached on how to deliver the allocated intervention and was provided with a resource package including physical copies and online access. Players were followed prospectively during the season for weekly injury reports and compliance with the intervention, collected using paper-based surveillance and short message service (SMS) responses. Players' and coaches' perceptions were captured online using bespoke questionnaires pre- and post-intervention.
Results: On average during the season, more players were exposed to the FIFA 11+ training sessions (16 out of 18 players, 89%) than RASIP (19 out of 36 players, 53%). The mean percentage of exercises completed over the season was also higher for the 11+ (100%) than RASIP (60%). The average percentage of players that participated in the intervention for those attending weekly training or matches for both groups was 99%. Overall injury incidence was lower for the RASIP group (68/1000 hours) than 11+ (70/ 1000 hours), while upper limb injuries were lower for the 11+ (10/ 1000 hours) than the RASIP group (11/ 1000 hours). At baseline all players felt that completing the warm up routine “would be good” however, 17% of players in the RASIP group expected that it would be unpleasant. At baseline all coaches reported that it would be “extremely good” to complete a rugby specific IPEP.
Conclusion(s): The FIFA 11+ IPEP was found to be more effective and had better compliance than RASIP in this small study.
Implications: Better results for the 11+ IPEP might imply that that this is a more effective IPEP than RASIP; however, negative player perceptions towards IPEP may have influenced this outcome. It is worth future studies addressing these negative perceptions at the onset by educating players and coaches about the benefits of IPEP.
Keywords: Rugby union, shoulder, injury prevention
Funding acknowledgements: This research was supported by the Private Physiotherapy Education Foundation.
Purpose: To describe the effectiveness of, and adherence to, a shoulder-specific IPEP for youth rugby players. Players' and coaches' attitudes towards injury prevention were also assessed.
Methods: Three community rugby union clubs (u-14 to u-18 age groups) in the south of England agreed to participate (players: n=51, coaches: n=7). Two teams were randomly allocated to the Rugby Active Shoulder Injury Programme (RASIP) and one to the FIFA 11+ intervention (a non-shoulder-specific IPEP comparator) using block randomisation. The RASIP was developed following a literature review, and feedback from stakeholders and a multidisciplinary technical project group. At baseline, the delivery agent (coach or a designate player) was coached on how to deliver the allocated intervention and was provided with a resource package including physical copies and online access. Players were followed prospectively during the season for weekly injury reports and compliance with the intervention, collected using paper-based surveillance and short message service (SMS) responses. Players' and coaches' perceptions were captured online using bespoke questionnaires pre- and post-intervention.
Results: On average during the season, more players were exposed to the FIFA 11+ training sessions (16 out of 18 players, 89%) than RASIP (19 out of 36 players, 53%). The mean percentage of exercises completed over the season was also higher for the 11+ (100%) than RASIP (60%). The average percentage of players that participated in the intervention for those attending weekly training or matches for both groups was 99%. Overall injury incidence was lower for the RASIP group (68/1000 hours) than 11+ (70/ 1000 hours), while upper limb injuries were lower for the 11+ (10/ 1000 hours) than the RASIP group (11/ 1000 hours). At baseline all players felt that completing the warm up routine “would be good” however, 17% of players in the RASIP group expected that it would be unpleasant. At baseline all coaches reported that it would be “extremely good” to complete a rugby specific IPEP.
Conclusion(s): The FIFA 11+ IPEP was found to be more effective and had better compliance than RASIP in this small study.
Implications: Better results for the 11+ IPEP might imply that that this is a more effective IPEP than RASIP; however, negative player perceptions towards IPEP may have influenced this outcome. It is worth future studies addressing these negative perceptions at the onset by educating players and coaches about the benefits of IPEP.
Keywords: Rugby union, shoulder, injury prevention
Funding acknowledgements: This research was supported by the Private Physiotherapy Education Foundation.
Topic: Sport & sports injuries; Musculoskeletal: upper limb
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: University of Bath
Ethics committee: Research Ethics Approval Committee for Health
Ethics number: EP 15/16 251
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
