Controlled ecological evaluation of an implemented exercise training programme to prevent lower limb injuries in sport: Differences in implementation activity
Injury Prevention, ISSN: 1475-5785, Vol: 25, Issue: 6, Page: 480-486
2019
- 15Citations
- 113Usage
- 72Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations15
- Citation Indexes15
- CrossRef15
- 14
- Usage113
- Downloads104
- Abstract Views9
- Captures72
- Readers72
- 72
Article Description
Objective The public health benefits of injury prevention programmes are maximised when programmes are widely adopted and adhered to. Therefore, these programmes require appropriate implementation support. This study evaluated implementation activity outcomes associated with the implementation of FootyFirst, an exercise training injury prevention programme for community Australian football, both with (FootyFirst+S) and without (FootyFirst+NS) implementation support. Method An evaluation plan based on the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) Sports Setting Matrix was applied in a controlled ecological evaluation of the implementation of FootyFirst. RE-AIM dimension-specific (range: 0-2) and total RE-AIM scores (range: 0-10) were derived by triangulating data from a number of sources (including surveys, interviews, direct observations and notes) describing FootyFirst implementation activities. The mean dimension-specific and total scores were compared for clubs in regions receiving FootyFirst+S and FootyFirst+NS, through analysis of variance. Results The mean total RE-AIM score forclubs in the FootyFirst+S regions was 2.4 times higher than for clubs in the FootyFirst+NS region (4.73 vs 1.94; 95% CI for the difference: 1.64 to 3.74). Similarly, all dimension-specific scores were significantly higher for clubs in the FootyFirst+S regions compared with clubs in the FootyFirst+NS region. In all regions, the dimension-specific scores were highest for reach and adoption, and lowest for implementation. Conclusion Implementing exercise training injury prevention programmes in community sport is challenging. Delivering programme content supported by a context-specific and evidence-informed implementation plan leads to greater implementation activity, which is an important precursor to injury reductions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85063853326&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042579; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29691316; https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042579; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/7219; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8224&context=ecuworkspost2013; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042579; https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/25/6/480
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know