Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To evaluate non-contact injury prevention strategies of professional men's soccer clubs in elite North American league soccer. To understand the application, perceived effectiveness and barriers to implementation.
Design: Online cross-Sectional Study.
Setting: North American elite soccer teams.
Participants: 96 medical and performance support staff of elite North American teams.
Main Outcome Measure: The survey consisted of 20 questions and captured 1) practitioners' demographics; 2) perceptions of risk factors; 3) the use of assessment and monitoring strategies; and 4) perceptions of the implementation of injury prevention programmes'.
Results: Injury prevention programmes were perceived as 'effective' (Median 4, Interquartile range 4-4) and reduced injury rates (n = 94, 98%, 95 CI% 93 to 99). A range of potential risk factors were rated as "very important" (4.58 ± 0.52 Likert scale points; mean ± standard deviation). A multi-disciplinary approach to the design, application and monitoring of programmes was generally adopted. Competing training priorities (n = 75, 78%, 95 CI% 69 to 85) and game schedules (n = 71, 74%, 95 CI% 64 to 82) were the most prevalent barriers to injury prevention implementation.
Conclusions: Injury prevention programmes were perceived as effective in reducing non-contact injuries. Managing the conflicting priorities between scheduling training, tactical and conditioning goals were considered the key barriers to desired implementation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2024.06.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!