Limits...
The Injury/Illness Performance Project (IIPP): A Novel Epidemiological Approach for Recording the Consequences of Sports Injuries and Illnesses.

Palmer-Green D, Fuller C, Jaques R, Hunter G - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2013)

Bottom Line: Results.For athlete illnesses (n = 378), the majority (P < 0.01) resulted in time-loss (270) compared with performance-restriction (101) (7 unclassified).Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

ABSTRACT
Background. Describing the frequency, severity, and causes of sports injuries and illnesses reliably is important for quantifying the risk to athletes and providing direction for prevention initiatives. Methods. Time-loss and/or medical-attention definitions have long been used in sports injury/illness epidemiology research, but the limitations to these definitions mean that some events are incorrectly classified or omitted completely, where athletes continue to train and compete at high levels but experience restrictions in their performance. Introducing a graded definition of performance-restriction may provide a solution to this issue. Results. Results from the Great Britain injury/illness performance project (IIPP) are presented using a performance-restriction adaptation of the accepted surveillance consensus methodologies. The IIPP involved 322 Olympic athletes (males: 172; female: 150) from 10 Great Britain Olympic sports between September 2009 and August 2012. Of all injuries (n = 565), 216 were classified as causing time-loss, 346 as causing performance-restriction, and 3 were unclassified. For athlete illnesses (n = 378), the majority (P < 0.01) resulted in time-loss (270) compared with performance-restriction (101) (7 unclassified). Conclusions. Successful implementation of prevention strategies relies on the correct characterisation of injury/illness risk factors. Including a performance-restriction classification could provide a deeper understanding of injuries/illnesses and better informed prevention initiatives.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Traditional time-loss definition compared to the inclusion of a performance-restriction injury/illness classification and change of injury/illness status.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590896&req=5

fig2: Traditional time-loss definition compared to the inclusion of a performance-restriction injury/illness classification and change of injury/illness status.

Mentions: A 60-day time-loss injury implies that the athlete had 60 days absence from training/competition and returned to full training on day 61 (Figure 2, Athlete A1). In reality, there is more likely to be a graded return to normal full training comprised of increases in training intensity and volume (Athlete A2); in terms of athlete performance, the 60 days may therefore be an overestimation of the true impact of the injury/illness. Bahr [20] described the potential complexity of the time-line for an overuse injury and recommended that continuous or serial measurements should be made on an athlete's condition in order to monitor these changes; the situation is similar for all injuries and illnesses, including acute and chronic events. Hence, the proposal here is that any change of status (COS) in an athletes' ability to train/compete over time is recorded. This approach is particularly beneficial when tracking complex long-term injuries/illnesses, as it provides sensitive, real-time capture of information about the evolution of and recovery from an injury/illness. The date of change of status is simply taken when the athlete moves from complete time-loss to performance-restriction or vice versa. The total severity of an injury/illness is then calculated by summing the individual time-loss and restriction-impact (FTE) days.


The Injury/Illness Performance Project (IIPP): A Novel Epidemiological Approach for Recording the Consequences of Sports Injuries and Illnesses.

Palmer-Green D, Fuller C, Jaques R, Hunter G - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2013)

Traditional time-loss definition compared to the inclusion of a performance-restriction injury/illness classification and change of injury/illness status.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590896&req=5

fig2: Traditional time-loss definition compared to the inclusion of a performance-restriction injury/illness classification and change of injury/illness status.
Mentions: A 60-day time-loss injury implies that the athlete had 60 days absence from training/competition and returned to full training on day 61 (Figure 2, Athlete A1). In reality, there is more likely to be a graded return to normal full training comprised of increases in training intensity and volume (Athlete A2); in terms of athlete performance, the 60 days may therefore be an overestimation of the true impact of the injury/illness. Bahr [20] described the potential complexity of the time-line for an overuse injury and recommended that continuous or serial measurements should be made on an athlete's condition in order to monitor these changes; the situation is similar for all injuries and illnesses, including acute and chronic events. Hence, the proposal here is that any change of status (COS) in an athletes' ability to train/compete over time is recorded. This approach is particularly beneficial when tracking complex long-term injuries/illnesses, as it provides sensitive, real-time capture of information about the evolution of and recovery from an injury/illness. The date of change of status is simply taken when the athlete moves from complete time-loss to performance-restriction or vice versa. The total severity of an injury/illness is then calculated by summing the individual time-loss and restriction-impact (FTE) days.

Bottom Line: Results.For athlete illnesses (n = 378), the majority (P < 0.01) resulted in time-loss (270) compared with performance-restriction (101) (7 unclassified).Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

ABSTRACT
Background. Describing the frequency, severity, and causes of sports injuries and illnesses reliably is important for quantifying the risk to athletes and providing direction for prevention initiatives. Methods. Time-loss and/or medical-attention definitions have long been used in sports injury/illness epidemiology research, but the limitations to these definitions mean that some events are incorrectly classified or omitted completely, where athletes continue to train and compete at high levels but experience restrictions in their performance. Introducing a graded definition of performance-restriction may provide a solution to this issue. Results. Results from the Great Britain injury/illness performance project (IIPP) are presented using a performance-restriction adaptation of the accepted surveillance consensus methodologies. The IIPP involved 322 Olympic athletes (males: 172; female: 150) from 10 Great Britain Olympic sports between September 2009 and August 2012. Of all injuries (n = 565), 216 were classified as causing time-loss, 346 as causing performance-restriction, and 3 were unclassified. For athlete illnesses (n = 378), the majority (P < 0.01) resulted in time-loss (270) compared with performance-restriction (101) (7 unclassified). Conclusions. Successful implementation of prevention strategies relies on the correct characterisation of injury/illness risk factors. Including a performance-restriction classification could provide a deeper understanding of injuries/illnesses and better informed prevention initiatives.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus