Key result
Involving research-invested clinicians in data collection resulted in an 8.8 times greater reported incidence of non-time-loss injuries compared to non-invested settings (P<0.001).
Why the study?
There is little documentation of variation that can exist between data recorders in injury surveillance programmes.
Does involving research-invested clinicians affect reported injury incidence in youth football?
Observational
No
Does involving research-invested clinicians affect reported injury incidence in youth football?
Relative Risk: 8.8
p-value: p=< 0.001
Involving clinicians who rely on collected data for research purposes significantly increases the reported rates of non-time-loss and minimal injuries, highlighting the need to use time-loss injuries for comparisons.
Non-time-loss injury rates may vary markedly by clinician research investment; leaves open optimal surveillance definitions for consistent youth football comparisons.
It is well established that differences in injury definition and recording methodology restrict comparisons between injury surveillance programmes. There is, however, little documentation of the variation that can exist between data recorders. The aim of this study was, therefore, to explore the effect on reported injuries when team recorders or supervisors are involved in research. Injury data collected prospectively over five seasons for the U16, U17, and U18 age groups in a youth football (soccer) academy were used to compare different recording settings based on the research involvement of the clinicians. A research-invested team physiotherapist reported an 8.8 times greater incidence (P < 0.001) of non-time-loss injuries and a 2.5 times greater incidence (P < 0.001) of minimal injuries (1-3 days lost) compared to a setting where neither the team physiotherapists nor the supervisor relied on the collected data for research purposes. When team physiotherapists were not invested in research themselves but were supervised by a researcher, the incidence of non-time-loss injuries and minimal injuries was 2.5 times (P < 0.001) and 2.0 times greater (P < 0.01) than in the non-invested setting, respectively. However, there were no differences between recording settings for overall incidence of time-loss injuries. The results from this study demonstrate that involving clinicians that are relying on the collected data for research purposes can significantly affect the reported rates of non-time-loss and minimal injuries. Time-loss injuries overall were not affected by research investment, and should therefore be preferred for comparisons between teams and seasons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wik et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Sports injuries. Research-invested clinicians vs. Non-invested clinicians was evaluated on Incidence of non-time-loss injuries (8.8 times greater incidence, p=< 0.001). Involving research-invested clinicians in data collection resulted in an 8.8 times greater reported incidence of non-time-loss injuries compared to non-invested settings (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: