The impact of adherence on sports injury prevention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials: Looking beyond the CONSORT statement

‘Compliance’ versus ‘adherence’ in sport injury prevention: why definition matters

“…To this end, researchers have conceptualised intervention uptake as both a modifying factor in efficacy trials,2 and as an outcome in effectiveness and implementation studies 3. While this has advanced our understanding of effective intervention designs, dose–response relationships, and barriers to programme use, the definition of ‘uptake’ has been inconsistent.…”

Setting our minds to implementation

“…Moreover, positive intervention outcomes do not necessarily lead to subsequent prevention of injuries. Interventions can only prevent injuries when they are actually adopted and used by the intended end users 5 6. This is where understanding of key implementation factors needs to come in and why BJSM has decided to give this prominence 7.…”

Bracing superior to neuromuscular training for the prevention of self-reported recurrent ankle sprains: a three-arm randomised controlled trial

“…The relatively high percentage of fully compliant participants in the training group (45%) implies that neuromuscular training is currently more widely accepted as a secondary preventive measure in the Netherlands than a few years ago. The study by Hupperets et al 18 24 reported full neuromuscular training compliance for only 23% of participants. It should be taken into account that compliance rates were calculated over different time periods.…”

“…The comparison of compliance rates between interventions over different time periods poses a study design issue of interest while it has been described in the literature that compliance rates affect intervention outcomes significantly 24. Prolonged prescription of an intervention may lead to a reduced compliance, thereby diluting an intervention effect.…”