Subjective assessment of athletes' movement quality is widely used by physiotherapists and other applied practitioners within many sports. One of the beliefs driving this practice is that individuals who display 'poor' movement patterns are more likely to suffer an injury than those who do not. The aim of this review was to summarize the reliability of the movement screens currently documented within the scientific literature and explore the evidence surrounding their association with injury risk. Ten assessments with accompanying reliability data were identified through the literature search. Only two of these ten had any evidence directly related to injury risk. A number of methodological issues were present throughout the identified studies, including small sample sizes, lack of descriptive rater or participant information, ambiguous injury definitions, lack of exposure time reporting and risk of bias. These factors, combined with the paucity of research on this topic, make drawing conclusions as to the reliability and predictive ability of movement screens difficult. None of the movement screens that appear within the scientific literature currently have enough evidence to justify the tag of 'injury prediction tool'.

No abstract

Practitioners' perceptions regarding the use and effectiveness of research evidence in sport is not well understood. The purpose of the present study was to examine practitioners' perceptions around the use, implementation, and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) in sport science in the United States of America (USA). A survey (28 items) was completed by 67 full-time staff who were a physical performance team member employed by universities and/or professional sporting organisations in the USA. Questions included the use of research, contribution of research areas, barriers to accessing and implementing EBP, and methods of feedback to coach and players. All respondents (100%) stated they used research evidence in their performance/training program, ranking research as contributing most (largest contribution = 1 to smallest contribution = 4) to individualised preparation or recovery recommendations (1.98 ± 1.02). The top three preferred sources of information were 'peer-reviewed research' (100% of respondents), 'conferences/seminars' (76%) and 'practitioners within your sport' (63%). Commonly reported perceived barriers between accessing and implementing research were 'lack of staff' (accessing = 33%, implementing = 46%) 'time' (accessing = 38%, implementing = 48%) and non-applicable research' (accessing = 33%, implementing = 37%), whilst "poor player compliance" was a clear barrier to implementing EBP (56%). Practitioners most preferred, and actual, method of feedback for coaching staff (87% for both) and players (94% and 95%, respectively) was 'informal conversations/speaking'. Improved access to educational and financial resources, increased integration of staff in coach settings and understanding of player/coach contexts may help to alleviate barriers to EBP.