Injury reporting and the use of injury prevention programmes in women's compared with men's rugby union players: A scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Identify current injury surveillance and prevention literature in women's compared to men's rugby union players. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: A two-step search strategy identified relevant published and unpublished literature on adult rugby players from five electronic databases, three governing body season report storage locations, and citation searches. Literature was screened against inclusion criteria for time-loss injury and/or injury prevention programmes and outcomes. Data was extracted and findings were reported using 1. a numerical analysis and 2. a thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 3196 articles were screened at abstract and full-text level, 252 met inclusion criteria. Across 252 studies were 330 cohorts, women-only cohorts accounted for 24 % (n = 79) of injury surveillance literature. Match injury incidence ranges were greater than training across all cohorts, men's and women's injury rates and severity across match and training were similar. Only 30 % of cohorts assessed training injury, 27 % in men's and 42 % in women's cohorts. General agreement highlighted lower limb, joint/ligament and concussion injuries to be most common across the men's and women's game. Risk factors were commonly assessed in men's literature (49 %) but reported less within women's research (25 %). Thirteen injury prevention studies were identified, two involved evaluation of injury prevention initiatives in women's cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited women's representation in rugby injury surveillance research compared to men's, and there is scarce evidence of the implementation and evaluation of injury prevention initiatives to reduce injury rates in women. Future research should focus on women's surveillance to inform injury prevention studies, implemented and evaluated in women's rugby cohorts.

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