Measuring Compliance and Perceptions of an Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Injury Prevention Programme: Insights From Female University Athletes

Résumé fourni par la source

Objectives This pilot study aimed to measure the compliance of female university athletes with a three-month "Prevent Injury, Enhance Performance" (PEP) warm-up, a validated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programme, and to gather athletes' perceptions, including barriers to participation in the prevention programme. Methods Participants were recruited from "The Ospreys" (Cambridge University's elite sportswomen's club) and considered eligible if they were English-speaking female athletes competing in a high-risk sport, aged 18 to 30. Participants completed a questionnaire pre- and post-completion of three months of the PEP prevention programme. Gathered information included participant demographics, sporting history, education and awareness of ACL injury risk factors, prevention programme perceptions, and compliance. Results A total of 45 participants were recruited, with a mean age of 21.69 years (± 2.51). The most common self-perceived risk of ACL injury among participants was 3 (out of 10) on a Likert scale. A total of 62% (n = 28) claimed awareness of ACL injury risk factors. The mean compliance with the prevention programme was 1.46 times per week. The time-consuming nature of the prevention programme was the most reported barrier to compliance (94%, n = 42). Conclusion Adherence to a three-month ACL injury prevention programme was limited, and the programme's time-intensive nature was perceived as the most common obstacle to completion. Few athletes were aware of the risk factors and prevention methods for ACL injuries. To prevent the severe long-term impacts of ACL injuries, it is crucial to investigate further the barriers to adopting injury prevention programmes. More time-efficient injury prevention programmes could be developed to improve athlete engagement.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.