Abstract
Purpose
Neuromuscular training (NMT) is effective at reducing football injuries. The purpose of this study was to document the use of NMT to prevent anterior cruciate ligament injuries and lateral ankle sprains in adult amateur football and to identify barriers for using NMT.
Methods
A preseason and in-season online survey was completed by players and coaches of 164 football teams. The survey contained questions concerning injury history, type and frequency of NMT, and barriers when NMT was not used.
Results
A total of 2013 players (40% female) and 180 coaches (10% female) completed the preseason survey, whereas 1253 players and 140 coaches completed the in-season survey. Thirty-four percent (preseason) to 21% (in-season) of players used NMT, but only 8% (preseason) to 5% (in-season) performed adequate NMT (i.e. both balance and plyometric exercises, at least twice per week). In the subpopulation of players with an injury history, 12% (preseason) and 7% (in-season) performed adequate NMT. With respect to the coaches, only 5% (preseason) and 2% (in-season) implemented adequate NMT. Most important barriers for using NMT for both players and coaches were a lack of belief in its effectiveness, a lack of knowledge, the belief that stretching is sufficient, and not feeling the need for it.
Conclusion
Most amateur football teams do not implement essential components of NMT. The results highlight the urgent need for developing strategies to enhance the adequate use of NMT in amateur football.
Level of evidence
II.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00167-022-06878-8.
Keywords: Soccer, ACL, Ankle injury, Neuromuscular training, Barriers
Introduction
Football is a high-risk sport for lower extremity injuries in all levels of adult play [6]. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and lateral ankle sprains are among the most important injuries in amateur football. These injuries are known for high recurrence rates [14, 31] and negative long-term consequences [10] such as osteoarthritis of the knee [19] and chronic ankle instability [8, 10]. ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains are also associated with a high medical and socio-economic burden [24]. This substantial personal and societal burden highlights the need for efficacious preventive measures.
Neuromuscular training (NMT) including stabilisation (i.e. jump-landing) and strengthening exercises is effective in reducing the risk for an ACL injury [18, 30] and (recurrent) lateral ankle sprain [9, 29]. The effectiveness of NMT programmes is dependent on the compliance [1, 25]. NMT programmes are of preventive benefit when performed at least twice per week throughout the entire season [18, 29].
Although there is a vast body of literature on the prevention of ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains, the degree of use has mainly been investigated in controlled study scenarios such as the control arm of an RCT, [1] but scarecely evaluated in a real-life, uncontrolled scenario [7]. Barriers towards the use of prevention programmes have been studied in multiple populations, ranging from professional teams to participants in effectiveness studies regarding injury prevention [4, 16, 17]. It is, however, unknown what the specific barriers are for amateur coaches and players to use preventive NMT. A good understanding of these barriers from the end-user perspective is important to facilitate the use of injury prevention in amateur sport [4, 17].
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to gain more insight into the use of NMT to prevent ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains in Belgian amateur football in an uncontrolled, real-life scenario. The primary aim was to document detailed aspects of NMT used by amateur football teams to prevent ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains during the preseason and the in-season and to compare the use of NMT between players with and without a previous injury. The second aim was to identify barriers for using NMT. The hypothesis was that the use of NMT in amateur football teams would be generally low but higher in the subgroup of players with a previous injury. The results of this study can inform medical professionals as well as policy makers about the degree of real-life implementation of effective injury prevention programs in amateur football. Identified barriers can serve as targets to be addressed to increase the use of NMT.
Materials and methods
This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University Hospital Brussels.
During two consecutive seasons (August 2014 and August 2015), a random sample of Belgian amateur football teams (female and male), were contacted via telephone and email. During a personal visit, research assistants informed coaches and players of interested teams about the purpose of the study. To be included, teams had to play in adult regional amateur competition. After providing written informed consent, players and coaches of the included teams were contacted twice (in September and December) to complete an online questionnaire regarding the use of NMT.
Online survey
In September, players and coaches were invited to complete an online survey (see Appendix 1) regarding the preseason (August–September). This online survey was developed together with stakeholders, such as researchers, coaches, players, physiotherapists, sport physicians, and the national football federation. The survey was pilot tested (informal user acceptance testing) in the target population before the start of the study. All participating players and coaches individually and independently completed the online survey containing demographic information as well as specific information regarding NMT for injury prevention. Players and coaches were independently asked whether or not they used specific exercises during planned training sessions and elsewhere (e.g. at home, or during physiotherapy sessions). If players and coaches used preventive exercises, they were subsequently asked whether the programme contained stabilisation exercises and plyometric exercises and if so, how frequently these exercises were performed, and what the duration of the exercises was. Photos and videos of examples of exercises were shown in the survey to clarify these types of exercises [9, 18, 23, 29, 30]. Players and coaches who did not use NMT were asked about barriers for the use of it. To this end, coaches and players could tick predefined barriers (closed response options), that the research team identified from previous studies [15, 22], and add other barriers (open response option). Four weekly email reminders were sent to the players and coaches who had not yet filled in the questionnaire. Furthermore, team coaches were contacted by the researchers by telephone and were asked to remind their players to complete the questionnaire. To evaluate the test–retest reliability of the questionnaire, a randomly chosen sample of participants completed the questionnaire a second time after 2–3 weeks.
In December of the same season, players and coaches were invited to complete the same online questionnaire again, this to provide information on the use of preventive measures during the first half of the competitive season (in-season phase).
Statistical analysis
The sample size estimation to observe a difference in the use of injury prevention between players with and without a history of an ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain, was based on an assumed higher use of NMT by 3% in the subgroup of players with a previous injury. Previous literature reported the use of NMT being around 15% [12]. The sample size was determined using a resampling method to be able to show a difference between the two groups using a chi-squared test. Based on simulations, a total sample of 1997 players would be sufficient to detect a difference with a power of 80% and a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.
To evaluate the test–retest reliability of the items of the questionnaire, Cohen’s Kappa was calculated. Concerning the use of NMT, three categories were used: (1) adequate NMT (performing both stabilisation exercises and plyometric exercises at least twice a week in or out of training), (2) inadequate NMT (less than twice a week and/or only one type of exercise) and (3) no NMT. These categories were based on results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [18, 29]. To assess the association between demographic data such as sex and injury history and the use of NMT, we used a Chi-squared test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed in R (version 4.0.5).
Results
Out of 164 recruited teams, a total of 2013 amateur football players (58% response rate) and 180 coaches (72% response rate) completed the questionnaire during the preseason (Table 1). In December of the same season, 62% of these players and 78% of the coaches completed the questionnaire a second time. Appendix 2 presents the flow of participants in the study. Fifty-seven percent of the players reported a history of an ACL injury and/or a lateral ankle sprain in the last two seasons. The test–retest reliability of the responses (n = 58 participants) was acceptable to excellent with Kappa coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 1.00.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the players and coaches
| Preseason | In-season | |
|---|---|---|
| Players | N = 2013 | N = 1253 |
| Age (years)* | 24.0 (5.5) | 24.2 (5.3) |
| Training frequency (per week)* | 2.1 (0.5) | 2.1 (0.5) |
| Female players† | 808 (40.1%) | 487 (38.9%) |
| History of lateral ankle sprain† | 1018 (50.6%) | 589 (47%) |
| History of ACL injury† | 237 (11.9%) | 156 (12.5%) |
| Involved in other sport† | 889 (44.2%) | 559 (44.6%) |
| Use of tape/brace during training/match† | 309 (15.4%) | 199 (15.9%) |
| Coaches | N = 180 | N = 140 |
| Age (years)* | 43.1 (10.0) | 44.0 (10.7) |
| Years of experience* | 14.1 (9.4) | 15.6 (10.1) |
| Training frequency (per week)* | 2.0 (0.5) | 2.0 (0.5) |
| Female coaches† | 18 (10.0%) | 14 (10.0%) |
| Training education certificate† | 88 (48.9%) | 67 (47.9%) |
| History of lateral ankle sprain† | 116 (64.4%) | 89 (63.5%) |
| History of ACL injury† | 35 (19.4%) | 27 (19.3%) |
ACL anterior cruciate ligament.
*Mean (standard deviation), †: n (%)
Players
Thirty-eight percent of all players (n = 762) used NMT for injury prevention during the preseason. In-season, this percentage was 28% (n = 353). Of all players, 8% (preseason) and 5% (in-season) used adequate NMT. The number of male players using adequate NMT was significantly higher compared to female players (preseason: X-squared 47.2, p < 0.001; in-season: X-squared 47.103, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). A detailed overview of the responses to the survey questions during the preseason and in-season is presented in Table 2. Out of the 38% of players who did some kind of prevention, 73.9% performed stabilisation exercises and 63.6% performed plyometric exercises during the preseason, but mostly not combined, less than twice a week and less than 10 min per session. In-season, these numbers were lower.
Fig. 1.
Use of NMT in male and female football players during preseason (a) and in-season (b)
Table 2.
Detailed results of NMT use by players, stratified by sex and injury history
| Preseason | In-season | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Male | Female | No injury history | Injury history | Overall | Male | Female | No injury history | Injury history | ||
| N/n | 2013 | 1205 | 808 | 873 | 1140 | 1253 | 766 | 487 | 587 | 666 | |
| Any injury prevention (%) | Yes | 762 (37.9) | 576 (47.8) | 186 (23.0) | 240 (27.5) | 522 (45.8) | 353 (28.2) | 266 (34.7) | 87 (17.9) | 126 (21.5) | 227 (34.1) |
| No | 1251 (62.1) | 629 (52.2) | 622 (77.0) | 633 (72.5) | 618 (54.2) | 900 (71.8) | 500 (65.3) | 400 (82.1) | 461 (78.5) | 439 (65.9) | |
| Stabilisation exercises (%) | Yes | 563 (73.9) | 446 (77.4) | 117 (62.9) | 161 (67.1) | 402 (77.0) | 225 (63.7) | 168 (63.2) | 57 (65.5) | 72 (57.1) | 153 (67.4) |
| No | 199 (26.1) | 130 (22.6) | 69 (37.1) | 79 (32.9) | 120 (23.0) | 128 (36.3) | 98 (36.8) | 30 (34.5) | 54 (42.9) | 74 (32.6) | |
| Attention to correct landing technique during stabilisation exercises (%) | Yes | 435 (78.1) | 342 (77.7) | 93 (79.5) | 125 (78.6) | 310 (77.9) | 186 (82.7) | 142 (84.5) | 44 (77.2) | 63 (87.5) | 123 (80.4) |
| No | 122 (21.9) | 98 (22.3) | 24 (20.5) | 34 (21.4) | 88 (22.1) | 39 (17.3) | 24 (15.5) | 13 (22.8) | 9 (12.5) | 30 (19.6) | |
| Stabilisation exercises during training (%) | Yes | 347 (61.6) | 284 (63.7) | 63 (53.8) | 111 (68.9) | 236 (58.7) | 115 (51.1) | 95 (56.5) | 20 (35.1) | 45 (62.5) | 70 (45.8) |
| No | 216 (38.4) | 162 (36.3) | 54 (46.2) | 50 (31.1) | 166 (41.3) | 110 (48.9) | 73 (43.5) | 37 (64.9) | 27 (37.5) | 83 (54.2) | |
| Frequency of stabilisation exercises during training (%) | < 1 time/week | 42 (12.2) | 30 (10.6) | 12 (19.0) | 16 (14.7) | 26 (11.0) | 29 (25.2) | 21 (22.1) | 8 (40.0) | 15 (33.3) | 14 (20.0) |
| 1 time/week | 165 (47.8) | 136 (48.2) | 29 (46.0) | 58 (53.2) | 107 (45.3) | 52 (45.2) | 46 (48.4) | 6 (30.0) | 19 (42.2) | 33 (47.1) | |
| 2 times/week | 121 (35.1) | 102 (36.2) | 19 (30.2) | 30 (27.5) | 91 (38.6) | 29 (25.2) | 24 (25.3) | 5 (25.0) | 9 (20.0) | 20 (28.6) | |
| 3 times/week | 14 ( 4.1) | 12 ( 4.3) | 2 ( 3.2) | 4 ( 3.7) | 10 ( 4.2) | 5 ( 4.3) | 4 ( 4.2) | 1 ( 5.0) | 2 ( 4.4) | 3 ( 4.3) | |
| 4 times/week | 2 ( 0.6) | 2 ( 0.7) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 0.9) | 1 ( 0.4) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| 5 times/week | 1 ( 0.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 1.6) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 0.4) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| Duration of stabilisation exercises during training (%) | < 10 min | 242 (69.9) | 193 (68.2) | 49 (77.8) | 83 (74.8) | 159 (67.7) | 87 (75.7) | 71 (74.7) | 16 (80.0) | 35 (77.8) | 52 (74.3) |
| > = 10 min | 104 (30.1) | 90 (31.8) | 14 (22.2) | 28 (25.2) | 76 (32.3) | 28 (24.3) | 24 (25.3) | 4 (20.0) | 10 (22.2) | 18 (25.7) | |
| Stabilisation exercises at home (%) | Yes | 356 (63.6) | 288 (65.0) | 68 (58.1) | 79 (49.4) | 277 (69.2) | 158 (70.2) | 113 (67.3) | 45 (78.9) | 42 (58.3) | 116 (75.8) |
| No | 204 (36.4) | 155 (35.0) | 49 (41.9) | 81 (50.6) | 123 (30.8) | 67 (29.8) | 55 (32.7) | 12 (21.1) | 30 (41.7) | 37 (24.2) | |
| Frequency stabilisation exercises at home (%) | < 1 time/week | 16 ( 4.5) | 12 ( 4.2) | 4 ( 5.9) | 8 (10.1) | 8 ( 2.9) | 11 ( 7.0) | 7 ( 6.2) | 4 ( 8.9) | 4 ( 9.5) | 7 ( 6.0) |
| 1 time/week | 105 (29.5) | 87 (30.2) | 18 (26.5) | 24 (30.4) | 81 (29.2) | 54 (34.2) | 42 (37.2) | 12 (26.7) | 15 (35.7) | 39 (33.6) | |
| 2 times/week | 140 (39.3) | 115 (39.9) | 25 (36.8) | 31 (39.2) | 109 (39.4) | 50 (31.6) | 36 (31.9) | 14 (31.1) | 11 (26.2) | 39 (33.6) | |
| 3 times/week | 60 (16.9) | 49 (17.0) | 11 (16.2) | 11 (13.9) | 49 (17.7) | 35 (22.2) | 24 (21.2) | 11 (24.4) | 10 (23.8) | 25 (21.6) | |
| 4 times/week | 9 ( 2.5) | 8 ( 2.8) | 1 ( 1.5) | 1 ( 1.3) | 8 ( 2.9) | 4 ( 2.5) | 2 ( 1.8) | 2 ( 4.4) | 1 ( 2.4) | 3 ( 2.6) | |
| 5 times/week | 13 ( 3.7) | 9 ( 3.1) | 4 ( 5.9) | 2 ( 2.5) | 11 ( 4.0) | 1 ( 0.6) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 2.2) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 0.9) | |
| > = 6 times/week | 13 ( 3.7) | 8 ( 2.8) | 5 ( 7.4) | 2 ( 2.5) | 11 ( 4.0) | 3 ( 1.9) | 2 ( 1.8) | 1 ( 2.2) | 1 ( 2.4) | 2 ( 1.7) | |
| Duration of stabilisation exercises at home (%) | < 10 min | 159 (44.5) | 126 (43.6) | 33 (48.5) | 35 (43.8) | 124 (44.8) | 78 (49.4) | 53 (46.9) | 25 (55.6) | 16 (38.1) | 62 (53.4) |
| > = 10 min | 198 (55.5) | 163 (56.4) | 35 (51.5) | 45 (56.2) | 153 (55.2) | 80 (50.6) | 60 (53.1) | 20 (44.4) | 26 (61.9) | 54 (46.6) | |
| Plyometric exercises (%) | Yes | 484 (63.6) | 396 (68.9) | 88 (47.3) | 143 (59.6) | 341 (65.5) | 186 (59.8) | 161 (60.5) | 25 (55.6) | 53 (54.1) | 133 (62.4) |
| No | 277 (36.4) | 179 (31.1) | 98 (52.7) | 97 (40.4) | 180 (34.5) | 125 (40.2) | 105 (39.5) | 20 (44.4) | 45 (45.9) | 80 (37.6) | |
| Attention to correct landing technique during plyometric exercises (%) | Yes | 290 (60.3) | 304 (77.0) | 69 (80.2) | 108 (76.1) | 265 (78.2) | 162 (87.1) | 137 (85.1) | 20 (80) | 44 (83.0) | 103 (77.4) |
| No | 191 (39.7) | 91 (23.0) | 17 (19.8) | 34 (23.9) | 74 (21.8) | 24 (12.9) | 24 (14.9) | 5 (20) | 9 (17.0) | 30 (22.6) | |
| Plyometric exercises during training (%) | Yes | 290 (60.3) | 247 (62.8) | 43 (48.9) | 86 (61.0) | 204 (60.0) | 117 (56.8) | 92 (57.1) | 25 (55.6) | 34 (58.6) | 83 (56.1) |
| No | 191 (39.7) | 146 (37.2) | 45 (51.1) | 55 (39.0) | 136 (40.0) | 89 (43.2) | 69 (42.9) | 20 (44.4) | 24 (41.4) | 65 (43.9) | |
| Frequency of plyometric exercises during training (%) | < 1 time/week | 47 (16.0) | 40 (15.9) | 7 (16.3) | 13 (14.9) | 34 (16.4) | 31 (22.6) | 31 (33.7) | 0 ( 0.0) | 11 (28.2) | 20 (20.4) |
| 1 time/week | 172 (58.5) | 144 (57.4) | 28 (65.1) | 56 (64.4) | 116 (56.0) | 64 (46.7) | 39 (42.4) | 25 (55.6) | 16 (41.0) | 48 (49.0) | |
| 2 times/week | 64 (21.8) | 58 (23.1) | 6 (14.0) | 15 (17.2) | 49 (23.7) | 39 (28.5) | 19 (20.7) | 20 (44.4) | 12 (30.8) | 27 (27.6) | |
| 3 times/week | 9 ( 3.1) | 8 ( 3.2) | 1 ( 2.3) | 3 ( 3.4) | 6 ( 2.9) | 3 ( 2.2) | 3 ( 3.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 3 ( 3.1) | |
| 4 times/week | 1 ( 0.3) | 1 ( 0.4) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 0.5) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| 5 times/week | 1 ( 0.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 2.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 0.5) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| Duration of plyometric exercises during training (%) | < 10 min | 192 (65.5) | 161 (64.4) | 31 (72.1) | 61 (69.3) | 131 (63.9) | 84 (75.0) | 69 (75.0) | 15 (75.0) | 31 (81.6) | 53 (71.6) |
| > = 10 min | 101 (34.5) | 89 (35.6) | 12 (27.9) | 27 (30.7) | 74 (36.1) | 28 (25.0) | 23 (25.0) | 5 (25.0) | 7 (18.4) | 21 (28.4) | |
| Plyometric exercises at home (%) | Yes | 215 (44.4) | 174 (43.9) | 41 (46.6) | 49 (34.3) | 166 (48.7) | 111 (54.4) | 89 (55.3) | 22 (51.2) | 31 (45.6) | 80 (58.8) |
| No | 269 (55.6) | 222 (56.1) | 47 (53.4) | 94 (65.7) | 175 (51.3) | 93 (45.6) | 72 (44.7) | 21 (48.8) | 37 (54.4) | 56 (41.2) | |
| Frequency of plyometric exercises at home (%) | < 1 time/week | 12 ( 5.6) | 10 ( 5.7) | 2 ( 4.9) | 3 ( 6.1) | 9 ( 5.4) | 13 (11.7) | 10 (11.2) | 3 (13.6) | 3 ( 9.7) | 10 (12.5) |
| 1 time/week | 64 (29.6) | 53 (30.3) | 11 (26.8) | 19 (38.8) | 45 (26.9) | 50 (45.0) | 46 (51.7) | 4 (18.2) | 14 (45.2) | 36 (45.0) | |
| 2 times/week | 87 (40.3) | 73 (41.7) | 14 (34.1) | 15 (30.6) | 72 (43.1) | 32 (28.8) | 25 (28.1) | 7 (31.8) | 10 (32.3) | 22 (27.5) | |
| 3 times/week | 40 (18.5) | 31 (17.7) | 9 (22.0) | 8 (16.3) | 32 (19.2) | 13 (11.7) | 7 ( 7.9) | 6 (27.3) | 3 ( 9.7) | 10 (12.5) | |
| 4 times/week | 4 ( 1.9) | 4 ( 2.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 4 ( 2.4) | 2 ( 1.8) | 1 ( 1.1) | 1 ( 4.5) | 0 ( 0.0) | 2 ( 2.5) | |
| 5 times/week | 4 ( 1.9) | 2 ( 1.1) | 2 ( 4.9) | 1 ( 2.0) | 3 ( 1.8) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| > = 6 times/week | 5 ( 2.3) | 2 ( 1.1) | 3 ( 7.3) | 3 ( 6.1) | 2 ( 1.2) | 1 ( 0.9) | 0 ( 0.0) | 1 ( 4.5) | 1 ( 3.2) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| Duration of plyometric exercises at home (%) | < 10 min | 88 (40.7) | 67 (38.3) | 21 (51.2) | 21 (42.9) | 67 (40.1) | 63 (56.8) | 49 (55.1) | 14 (63.6) | 14 (45.2) | 49 (61.3) |
| > = 10 min | 128 (59.3) | 108 (61.7) | 20 (48.8) | 28 (57.1) | 100 (59.9) | 48 (43.2) | 40 (44.9) | 8 (36.4) | 17 (54.8) | 31 (38.8) | |
| Tape/brace (%) | No tape/brace | 1702 (84.6) | 1051 (87.2) | 651 (80.8) | 806 (92.4) | 896 (78.7) | 1054 (84.1) | 660 (86.2) | 394 (80.9) | 548 (93.4) | 506 (76.0) |
| Tape/brace | 309 (15.4) | 154 (12.8) | 155 (19.2) | 66 ( 7.6) | 243 (21.3) | 199 (15.9) | 106 (13.8) | 93 (19.1) | 39 ( 6.6) | 160 (24.0) | |
Players with a previous ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain
Forty-six percent of players with a previous ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain used NMT during the preseason, compared to 34% in-season. Twelve percent (preseason) and 7% (in-season) used adequate NMT (Fig. 2). Players with a previous injury performed significantly more NMT than players without a previous injury (preseason X-squared 36.9, p < 0.001, in-season X-squared 80.3, p < 0.001). Table 2 shows the detailed responses of players stratified by injury history. Similar results were found in the subpopulations with either a history of ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain.
Fig. 2.
Distribution of players with a previous lateral ankle sprain and/or ACL injury among the prevention categories during preseason (n = 1140) and in-season (n = 666)
Coaches
During the preseason, 76% of the coaches implemented NMT compared to 62% in-season. Six percent (preseason) to 2% (in-season) of the coaches used adequate NMT (Fig. 3). Three percent of coaches with a history of an ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain themselves implemented adequate NMT during their training sessions. This number was significantly higher when compared to coaches without a history of injury (1%) (X-squared 12.9, p = 0.002). A detailed overview of the coaches’ responses to the survey questions during the preseason and in-season is displayed in Table 3.
Fig. 3.
Use of prevention among coaches during the preseason (n = 180) and in-season (n = 140)
Table 3.
Detailed results of NMT implementation by coaches
| Preseason | In-season | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 180 | 140 | |
| Prevention (%) | Yes | 114 (63.3) | 74 (52.9) |
| No | 66 (36.7) | 66 (47.1) | |
| Stababilisation exercises (%) | Yes | 78 (68.4) | 48 (64.9) |
| No | 36 (31.6) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Attention to correct landing technique during stabilisation exercises (%) | Yes | 52 (66.7) | 37 (77.1) |
| No | 26 (33.3) | 11 (22.9) | |
| Frequency of stabilisation exercises (%) | < 1 time/week | 13 (16.7) | 30 (62.5) |
| 1 time/week | 41 (52.6) | 12 (25.0) | |
| 2 times/week | 20 (25.6) | 6 (12.5) | |
| 3 times/week | 2 ( 2.6) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| 4 times/week | 2 ( 2.6) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| Duration of stabilisation exercises (%) | < 10 min | 54 (69.2) | 21 (43.8) |
| > = 10 min | 24 (30.8) | 27 (56.2) | |
| Plyometric exercises (%) | Yes | 79 (69.3) | 56 (75.7) |
| No | 35 (30.7) | 18 (24.3) | |
| Attention to correct landing technique during plyometric exercises (%) | Yes | 54 (67.5) | 42 (75.0) |
| No | 26 (32.5) | 14 (25.0) | |
| Frequency of plyometric exercises (%) | < 1 time/week | 19 (24.1) | 33 (58.9) |
| 1 time/week | 47 (59.5) | 20 (35.7) | |
| 2 times/week | 11 (13.9) | 3 ( 5.4) | |
| 3 times/week | 1 ( 1.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| 4 times/week | 1 ( 1.3) | 0 ( 0.0) | |
| Duration of plyometric exercises (%) | < 10 min | 57 (72.2) | 32 (57.1) |
| > = 10 min | 22 (27.8) | 24 (42.9) |
Barriers for the use of NMT
The barriers for using NMT by players and coaches are presented in Fig. 4. The most common barrier for players was a lack of knowledge and for coaches a lack of time.
Fig. 4.
Players’ (a) and coaches’ (b) barriers for the use of NMT
Discussion
The most important finding of the present study was that only a very small proportion of amateur football players and coaches used NMT in an adequate way. The same results were observed in the subpopulation of players with a history of an ACL or lateral ankle sprain. The most important barriers for using NMT were a lack of knowledge (players and coaches), the belief that stretching was sufficient (players and coaches), not feeling the need for NMT (players), and a lack of time (coaches).
NMT
In this study, almost 60% of the players already sustained an ACL injury and/or a lateral ankle sprain in the past two seasons. Despite the evidence for the effectiveness of preventive exercises to reduce the risk of recurrency of these injuries [9, 18], only 12% of the players in the present cohort performed adequate NMT. It could be assumed that the players with a previous lateral ankle sprain who did not use NMT would take other effective preventive measures, such as using an external support (e.g. brace) [2]. However, in the subgroup of players with a previous lateral ankle sprain, only 16% used a tape or brace and 49% did not use any kind of preventive measure (see Table 2).
Similar to the data of the players, only a very small proportion of the coaches in this study implemented adequate NMT during their training. Gebert et al. (2019) [7] reported that only 20% of the amateur football coaches use a prevention programme at least once per week. This is in accordance with the preseason findings. In-season, more than half of the coaches incorporated stabilisation or plyometric exercises during their training sessions less than once per week (Table 3). The observation that only half of the coaches in this study disposed a formal trainer education certificate may at least partially explain the low number of coaches adequately using NMT. A previous study in amateur youth football found that the lower level of coach education was associated with a more negative attitude towards using injury prevention programmes [3].
The criteria for adequate NMT were based on the results of meta-analyses regarding the effectiveness of exercise-based injury prevention [9, 11, 18]. Furthermore, previous studies concluded that NMT should be performed both during preseason and in-season to induce the desired prophylactic effect [9, 11, 18].
It has been demonstrated that the effectiveness of injury prevention programmes depends on the degree of compliance [28] and that the effectiveness increases with increasing compliance to such programmes [21, 32]. Studies investigating the effect of “11 + Kids” and “11 + ” programmes in amateur football players, mention that these programmes need to be performed at least twice per week throughout the whole season [21, 25]. However, the already very low proportion of players and coaches using adequate NMT (or any NMT) during the preseason dropped during the competitive season. This general trend over the course of the season is present for both stabilisation and plyometric exercises, and for the frequency of execution as well as duration of exercises during training (Table 2). Future studies should therefore focus on the continuation of NMT throughout the entire football season and the reasons for discontinuation once the competition starts.
Barriers for NMT
One of the most important barriers for using NMT is the lack of knowledge of how NMT should be incorporated adequately during training (e.g. essential components and frequency). The relatively high proportion of coaches who reported not to know which exercises to use or simply stated lacking time is in accordance with previous studies [20, 27]. Furthermore, a vast amount of coaches and players believed that stretching is sufficient to prevent ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains, although this is not supported by literature [13, 18]. This finding suggests that much more efforts are needed to educate coaches and players regarding injury prevention. Another important barrier for players to use NMT was the perception that they do not need preventive exercises. This is remarkable since a large proportion of the players and coaches participating in this study reported already having sustained a previous ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain in the last two seasons. As one may suppose that a large proportion of these players visited medical doctors and underwent rehabilitation, one would expect that they should be more aware of a potential injury risk and the benefits of NMT. Informing players about NMT is a task that should be taken up by clinicians to improve the degree of compliance and reduce recurrent injuries.
Practical application and future direction
The awareness and knowledge of the benefits and content of NMT needs to be increased in both players and coaches, as supported by the lack of adequate use of NMT in amateur football teams. A previous coach survey in several European countries showed that the application of injury prevention in the different countries was associated with the proportion of coaches that received formal training [3]. It could, therefore, be of interest to provide (free) workshops for coaches as well as players to enhance knowledge and work together with all stakeholders in the design of feasible and effective injury prevention measures [26]. In formal coach education, there should be more emphasis on injury prevention. The presence of barriers such as lack of knowledge and lack of belief in effectiveness indicate the important role of federations and clinicians in injury prevention. National and international federations should cooperate with amateur football representatives to set up education initiatives, and co-create feasible injury prevention initiatives. The existing RE-AIM framework could help to target the issue of implementation in amateur sport settings [5, 26]. The findings of the present study should encourage athletic trainers and clinicians to determine the perception of amateur football players concerning the use of preventive measures to counter possible barriers for NMT and to increase its use.
This study is the first to document in a detailed way the use of NMT and associated barriers perceived by coaches and players in Belgian amateur football. The large and representative sample provides a comprehensive picture of the use of NMT in this population. However, this study has some limitations. The first limitation is the self-reported nature of the data. Since the use of NMT was investigated during preseason and in-season, respectively, there are no data on other periods of the season. However, as results of the preseason are very similar to those of the first half of the competitive season, it seems unlikely that the use of NMT during the second half of the competitive season would significantly change. Furthermore, a potential recall bias could not be ruled out. Due to the sample size and geographic spreading, the data could not be verified “on the field”. Therefore, the possibility of participants giving socially desirable answers could not be ruled out. However, Kappa coefficients of the items of the online survey demonstrate acceptable to excellent test–retest reliability of the questionnaire. As expected and as it is usual in survey studies, a substantial proportion of the initial sample did not fill in the survey a second time in December. However, there were no significant differences between the participants at two time points, suggesting that the drop out was not selective.
Conclusion
Most amateur football teams do not implement essential components of NMT to prevent ACL injuries and lateral ankle sprains, neither during the preseason nor in-season. More importantly, the majority of the players with a previous ACL injury or lateral ankle sprain and thus being at increased risk, neither used adequate NMT, used a brace or tape. Most important barriers for using NMT were a lack of knowledge, the belief that stretching is sufficient, and not feeling the need for using NMT.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all participating teams and coaches to make this study possible, as well as the master students involved in this project for their contribution to the data collection.
Authors’ contributions
CE designed the study. NR and CE designed the research question and methodology. CE, LL and TH supervised the data collection and assessed data quality. NR analysed the data. NR, RR and CE drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the draft and reviewed the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Basel. No funding to declare.
Data availability
The data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Code avialability
Data were mainly analyzed descriptively in R using packages dplyr and ggplot2. The codes for data processing and descriptive statistics as well as plots are available upon request to the corresponding author.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
These authors contributed equally: Nikki Rommers and Roland Rössler.
References
- 1.Åkerlund I, Waldén M, Sonesson S, Lindblom H, Hägglund M. High compliance with the injury prevention exercise programme Knee Control is associated with a greater injury preventive effect in male, but not in female, youth floorball players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06644-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bellows R, Wong CK. The effect of bracing and balance training on ankle sprain incidence among athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018;13:379–388. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20180379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.De Ste CM, Ayala F, Sanchez SH, Lehnert M, Hughes J. Grass-root coaches knowledge, understanding, attitude and confidence to deliver injury prevention training in youth soccer: a comparison of coaches in three EU countries. J Sci Sport Exerc. 2020;2:367–374. doi: 10.1007/s42978-020-00075-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Donaldson A, Callaghan A, Bizzini M, Jowett A, Keyzer P, Nicholson M. A concept mapping approach to identifying the barriers to implementing an evidence-based sports injury prevention programme. Inj Prev. 2019;25:244–251. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Finch CF, Donaldson A. A sports setting matrix for understanding the implementation context for community sport. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:973–978. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.056069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gebert A, Gerber M, Pühse U, Gassmann P, Stamm H, Lamprecht M. A comparison of injuries in different non-professional soccer settings: incidence rates, causes and characteristics. Open Sports Sci J. 2019;12:28–34. doi: 10.2174/1875399X01912010028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gebert A, Gerber M, Puhse U, Stamm H, Lamprecht M. Injury prevention in amateur soccer: a nation-wide study on implementation and associations with injury incidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1593–1602. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16091593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gribble PA, Bleakley CM, Caulfield BM, Docherty CL, Fourchet F, Fong DT, et al. 2016 consensus statement of the International Ankle Consortium: prevalence, impact and long-term consequences of lateral ankle sprains. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:1493–1495. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Grimm NL, Jacobs JC, Jr, Kim J, Amendola A, Shea KG. Ankle injury prevention programs for soccer athletes are protective: a level-I meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1436–1443. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Herzog MM, Kerr ZY, Marshall SW, Wikstrom EA. Epidemiology of ankle sprains and chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2019;54:603–610. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-447-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Huang YL, Jung J, Mulligan CMS, Oh J, Norcross MF. A majority of anterior cruciate ligament injuries can be prevented by injury prevention programs: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cluster-randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48:1505–1515. doi: 10.1177/0363546519870175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hupperets MD, Verhagen EA, van Mechelen W. Effect of unsupervised home based proprioceptive training on recurrences of ankle sprain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339(b2684):1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lauersen JB, Bertelsen DM, Andersen LB. The effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:871–877. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Losciale JM, Zdeb RM, Ledbetter L, Reiman MP, Sell TC. The association between passing return-to-sport criteria and second anterior cruciate ligament injury risk: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49:43–54. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.McGuine TA, Hetzel S, Pennuto A, Brooks A. Basketball coaches' utilization of ankle injury prevention strategies. Sports Health. 2013;5:410–416. doi: 10.1177/1941738113491072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.McKay CD, Steffen K, Romiti M, Finch CF, Emery CA. The effect of coach and player injury knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on adherence to the FIFA 11+ programme in female youth soccer. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:1281–1286. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.O'Brien J, Finch CF. Injury prevention exercise programs for professional soccer: understanding the perceptions of the end-users. Clin J Sport Med. 2017;27:1–9. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Petushek EJ, Sugimoto D, Stoolmiller M, Smith G, Myer GD. Evidence-based best-practice guidelines for preventing anterior cruciate ligament injuries in young female athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47:1744–1753. doi: 10.1177/0363546518782460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Poulsen E, Goncalves GH, Bricca A, Roos EM, Thorlund JB, Juhl CB. Knee osteoarthritis risk is increased 4–6 fold after knee injury - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53:1454–1463. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rees H, Matthews J, Persson UM, Delahunt E, Boreham C, Blake C. Coaches’ attitudes to injury and injury prevention: a qualitative study of Irish field hockey coaches. BMJ Open SEM. 2021;7:e001074. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rössler R, Junge A, Bizzini M, Verhagen E, Chomiak J, Aus der Funten K, et al. A multinational cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of '11+ kids': a warm-up programme to prevent injuries in children's football. Sports Med. 2018;48:1493–1504. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0834-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Saunders N, Otago L, Romiti M, Donaldson A, White P, Finch C. Coaches' perspectives on implementing an evidence-informed injury prevention programme in junior community netball. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:1128–1132. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.069039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Schiftan GS, Ross LA, Hahne AJ. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training in preventing ankle sprains in sporting populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Shah S, Thomas AC, Noone JM, Blanchette CM, Wikstrom EA. Incidence and cost of ankle sprains in united states emergency departments. Sports Health. 2016;8:547–552. doi: 10.1177/1941738116659639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Silvers-Granelli HJ, Bizzini M, Arundale A, Mandelbaum BR, Snyder-Mackler L. Higher compliance to a neuromuscular injury prevention program improves overall injury rate in male football players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:1975–1983. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-4895-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Tee JC, McLaren SJ, Jones B. Sports injury prevention is complex: we need to invest in better processes, not singular solutions. Sports Med. 2020;50:689–702. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01232-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.van der Horst N, van de Hoef S, van Otterloo P, Klein M, Brink M, Backx F. Effective but not adhered to: how can we improve adherence to evidence-based hamstring injury prevention in amateur football? Clin J Sport Med. 2021;31:42–48. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.van Reijen M, Vriend I, van Mechelen W, Finch CF, Verhagen EA. Compliance with sport injury prevention interventions in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2016;46:1125–1139. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0470-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Vuurberg G, Hoorntje A, Wink LM, van der Doelen BFW, van den Bekerom MP, Dekker R, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of ankle sprains: update of an evidence-based clinical guideline. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(956):1–15. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Webster KE, Hewett TE. Meta-analysis of meta-analyses of anterior cruciate ligament injury reduction training programs. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:2696–2708. doi: 10.1002/jor.24043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD. Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:1861–1876. doi: 10.1177/0363546515621554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Zarei M, Abbasi H, Namazi P, Asgari M, Rommers N, Rössler R. The 11+ Kids warm-up programme to prevent injuries in young Iranian male high-level football (soccer) players: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2020;23:469–474. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Data were mainly analyzed descriptively in R using packages dplyr and ggplot2. The codes for data processing and descriptive statistics as well as plots are available upon request to the corresponding author.