Facilitators and barriers for implementation of a load management intervention in football

Abstract

BackgroundIn a recent randomised controlled trial, we found that a commonly used training load management approach was not effective in preventing injuries and illnesses in Norwegian elite youth footballers.AimTo investigate players’ and coaches’ barriers and facilitators to a load management approach to prevent injuries and illnesses and their attitudes and beliefs of load management and injuries and illnesses in general.MethodsWe asked players and coaches about their views on injury risk in football, the benefits and limitations of load management in general and implementation of load management in football. The questionnaires used were based on similar studies using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.ResultsWe recorded answers from 250 players and 17 coaches. Most players (88%) reported that scientific evidence showing improved performance from the intervention measures is a key facilitator to completing the intervention. Similarly, coaches reported that the most important facilitator was scientific evidence that the preventive measures were effective (100%). Players reported that the coach’s attitude to preventive measures was important (86%), and similarly, 88% of coaches reported that the player’s attitude was important.ConclusionsBy having a mutual positive attitude towards the intervention, players and coaches can positively contribute to each other’s motivation and compliance. Both players and coaches reported scientific evidence for load management having injury-preventive and performance-enhancing effect and being time efficient as important facilitators.Trial registration numberTrial registration number

Adherence to an injury prevention program in male amateur football players is affected by players’ age, experience and perceptions

“…Perceptions about intensity, functionality and time expenditure are also related to adherence and could be considered when designing and implementing an IPEP in football. These results confirm that efficacious injury prevention measures must be easy to execute and take little time 4 21…”

The perception of injury risk and prevention among football players: A systematic review

“…Studies included were conducted in Qatar ( 14 ), Canada ( 15 , 16 ), Norway ( 17 ), United Kingdom ( 18 , 19 ), Germany ( 20 , 21 ), United States of America ( 22 ), Ireland ( 23 ), Brazil ( 24 ), Brunei ( 25 ), Austria ( 26 ), and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ( 27 ) ( Table 1 ).…”

“…All studies were published in English between 1998 and 2022. Regarding the study design, eight studies were cross-sectional ( 14 , 15 , 19 , 21 , 23 – 25 , 27 ), two were cluster-randomized controlled trials ( 16 , 17 ), two were cohort ( 20 , 22 ), one was qualitative ( 18 ), and one used mixed methods ( 26 ). The sample sizes ranged from 30 to 1,129 participants.…”

“…The participants’ age ranged from 11 to 40 years old. The studies comprised elite and professional players ( 14 , 17 – 20 , 24 , 26 , 27 ), youth and amateur players ( 15 , 16 , 22 , 23 , 25 ), and one study involved both competitive levels ( 21 ). Five studies included both genders ( 17 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 27 ), four studies were conducted on female players ( 14 – 16 , 23 ), and five studies involved male players ( 19 – 21 , 24 , 26 ) ( Table 1 ).…”

“…Seven studies used a questionnaire ( 15 , 16 , 18 – 20 , 24 , 25 ), five studies used a survey ( 14 , 17 , 21 , 23 , 27 ), one study used a scale to analyse the perception of injury risk and injury prevention among football players ( 22 ), and one study used semi-structured interviews and focus groups ( 26 ) ( Table 2 ).…”