|
Abstract
|
Background
The outcomes typically reported from injury prevention trials are incidence rates. In this editorial, we show that this approach only paints part of a bigger picture and could even lead to misinterpretations. We argue that injury severity and injury burden should be presented in conjunction with incidence to provide a more complete assessment of the effectiveness of sports injury prevention interventions.
Principles of risk management
Sports participation carries an inherent risk of injury, and anticipating every athlete may sustain several injuries during their career is reasonable. No preventive measure or programme has ever been, or will ever be, 100% effective. As a result, rather than eradicating injuries, the focus should be on reducing risks to an acceptable level. To prioritise our efforts, we must first identify which risks are unacceptable.1 2
Risk management principles have previously been discussed in the context of sports.1 3 A risk management approach adopts a broad set of mitigation measures that can reduce the number and severity of injuries.1 The International Olympic Committee, among others, has encouraged the use of risk management principles in the consensus on the recording and reporting of injury and illness in sports.4 These recommendations emphasise that choices for preventive foci should not be based solely on the incidence of injury but should also consider their severity in terms of days lost from sports.
This is not to say that the severity of an injury can be defined by time loss alone. Where injury incidence is universally regarded as the number of events observed for some time spent in the population, no equivalent characterisation is available for severity. Severity is a latent measure involving many factors, such as the nature and diagnosis of an injury and limitations to sport-specific functional capacity. Among these, time loss resulting from an injury is an easy-to-observe parameter of interest. ...'
Language: en |