Methods, challenges and benefits of a health monitoring programme for Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic athletes: the road from London 2012 to Tokyo 2020

Abstract

ObjectiveTo describe the implementation of a health monitoring programme for Norwegian Paralympic and Olympic candidates over five consecutive Olympic and Paralympic Games cycles (London 2012, Sochi 2014, Rio de Janeiro 2016, PyeongChang 2018 and Tokyo 2020).MethodsAthletes were monitored for 12–18 months preparing for the games using a weekly online questionnaire (OSTRC-H2) with follow-up by physicians and physiotherapists, who provided clinical care and classified reported problems.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2020, 533 Olympic and 95 Paralympic athletes were included in the monitoring programme, with an overall response of 79% to the weekly questionnaire and a total observation period of 30 826 athlete weeks. During this time, 3770 health problems were reported, with a diagnosis rate of 97%. The average prevalence of health problems at any given time was 32% among Olympic athletes and 37% among Paralympic athletes. Acute traumatic injuries represented the greatest burden for Olympic team sport athletes, and illnesses represented the greatest burden for Olympic endurance and Paralympic athletes. On average, Olympic athletes lost 27 days and Paralympic athletes lost 33 days of training per year due to health problems.ConclusionConducting long-term health monitoring of Olympic and Paralympic athletes is challenging, particularly because athletes travel frequently and often relate to many medical providers. This programme has been implemented and improved within Team Norway for five Olympic and Paralympic cycles and during this time we believe it has helped protect our athletes’ health.

Effect of an Unsupervised Exercises-Based Athletics Injury Prevention Programme on Injury Complaints Leading to Participation Restriction in Athletics: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

“…The mean response proportion was less than 50%, which was inferior to that reported in previous epidemiological studies in elite athletes (69–91%) [ 2 , 19 , 20 ], but closer to that in lower level athletes (50–60%) [ 21 , 22 ]. Possible explanations could be the athletes’ level (all levels vs. national and international levels in other studies [ 2 , 19 ]), the culture ( Latin in our and Barboza et al [ 21 ] studies vs. Nordic [ 2 , 19 , 20 ]), the few feedbacks to athletes [ 21 ], or the specificities of athletics as individual sports [ 2 , 23 ]. As previously reported [ 15 , 21 , 22 ], we observed a decrease in the response proportions throughout the follow-up period.…”

“…Efforts should be made to reach a high level of response proportion. In addition to regular automatic reminders to athletes, other strategies should be developed, for instance, having one investigator monitoring the response proportion during the study and trying to enforce participation, educating end-users on the interest of monitoring the evolution of some characteristics of athletes over the time (e.g., training load, pain, fatigue), providing some visual feedbacks of these characteristics and evolutions, and providing scientific evidence of the improvement of health and/or performance by using this monitoring [ 19 , 21 ].…”

Introducing a new method to record injuries during military training: a prospective study among 296 young Norwegian conscripts

“…A response rate of 74% is similar to previous studies using the same method in the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic team, with weekly response rates ranging from 58% to 88% 13. We found that the band and drill company had a higher response rate, which might be due to a more regular schedule without field exercises, but we have not conducted any follow-up of the different companies to explore possible differences in military culture and attitudes towards injuries and health.…”

“…The average injury prevalence reported by conscripts in the Norwegian Army (28%) was quite similar to that among Norwegian Olympic athletes (32%) 13. However, the proportion (10%) reporting a substantial injury at any given time (affecting performance and participation at least to a moderate degree) was lower among soldiers than Olympic athletes (15%).…”

Lessons from the Winter Paralympic Games disclosing the epidemiology of winter sports injury in paralytic athletes: a meta-analysis

“…Being anxious about the physical disadvantage, paralytic athletes were regarded to be susceptible to sports injury. However, from study of Clarsen et al, the incidence of sport injury seemed to be comparable between Winter Paralympic athletes and Winter Olympic athletes [ 2 ]. Among winter sports, alpine skiing, Nordic skiing, and sledge hockey were extensively regarded as the 3 most popular items in disabled athletes [ 3 ].…”