|
Citation
|
Yates BA, Janosky J, Ologhobo T, Russomano J, Ling DI, Kinderknecht JJ, Schoenthaler AM, Marx RG. Exerc. Sport Mov. 2024; 2(1): e1. |
|
Abstract
|
Introduction/Purpose
Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and short-term effectiveness of a community-based anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk reduction program (IRP) live workshop using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework modified for sports settings.
Methods
We conducted a prospective longitudinal study. Custom surveys were administered before and after the workshop and 1 month later to capture contextual variables needed to evaluate the program using four of the five RE-AIM domains. Live workshops were conducted at community centers throughout the northeastern US, and coaches were trained on risk factors for ACL injuries and how to identify and correct musculoskeletal movements known to increase ACL injury risk.
Results
Three hundred and seventy-three coaches attended the workshop, but 171 (46.4%; mean age, 33 ± 10 yr; 58% male) completed pre- and post-workshop surveys demonstrating significant improvements (P < 0.0001) in measures of program effectiveness, including knowledge (8.1%), attitudes/beliefs (18.0%), and confidence (39.6%). Overall, 98% of coaches were satisfied with the workshop delivery quality and content. Fifty-three coaches completed a 1-month follow-up survey, 75.5% of whom reported adoption of the ACL IRP. Of these, 100% reported implementing the ACL IRP before practice/training sessions, and 97.5% reported implementing it before games/competitions.
Conclusions
Overall, the results of this evaluation demonstrate the ACL IRP workshop feasibility and provide guidance for enhancement of the workshop. Our ACL IRP workshop was effective at increasing coaches' knowledge and perspectives about injury risk reduction principles. Although the behavioral strategies incorporated in the program design promoted high ACL IRP workshop satisfaction, further improvements are needed to increase survey response rates during post-workshop follow-up.
Language: en |