Running-related Injury Prevention Research Articles

Co-creation of injury prevention measures for competitive adolescent distance runners: knowledge, behavior, and needs of athletes and coaches enrolled on England Athletics’ Youth Talent Programme

This study assessed the knowledge, behavior, and needs of competitive adolescent (16–18 years) distance runners and distance running coaches enrolled as part of England Athletics’ Youth Talent Programme in relation to the prevention of running-related injury (RRI). Two online surveys were developed and distributed to the distance runners (survey one) and coaches (survey two). Both surveys included sections related to: (1) current knowledge; (2) current behavior; (3) need and support for RRI prevention measures; and (4) possible content and form of RRI prevention measures. A total of 39 distance runners (36% of total possible sample) completed survey 1, and 29 coaches (32% of total possible sample) completed survey 2. Key findings included that the majority of distance runners and coaches: (1) agreed that it is ‘very important’ to try to prevent RRI; (2) are currently implementing something in practice (e.g., strength training) to prevent RRI; and (3) view the creation of RRI prevention measures as an important initiative. Differences between distance runners and coaches were identified in relation to their understanding of the most common causes of RRI. Interestingly, distance runners identified a modifiable cause of RRI (i.e., too much training) as the most common cause of RRI, while coaches selected a non-modifiable cause of RRI (i.e., growth and maturation). These key findings were supplemented by competitive adolescent runners and distance running coaches detailing their delivery preferences for such RRI prevention measures. Results from this study will help inform subsequent steps of the larger co-creation process, with an emphasis on developing multifaceted and context-specific RRI prevention measures that are deemed to be feasible and acceptable for real-world implementation.

A Comparison of Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries between Adult and Adolescent Runners.

BackgroundThere are multiple personal and environmental factors that influence the risk of developing running-related injuries (RRIs). However, it is unclear how these key clinical factors differ between adult and adolescent runners.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare anthropometric, training, and self-reported outcomes among adult and adolescent runners with and without lower extremity musculoskeletal RRIs.Study DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsQuestionnaire responses and clinical assessment data were extracted from 38 adult runners (F: 25, M: 13; median age: 23 [range 18-36]) and 91 adolescent runners (F: 56, M: 35; median age: 15 [range 14-16]) who underwent a physical injury prevention evaluation at a hospital-affiliated sports injury prevention center between 2013 and 2021. Participants were sub-grouped into those with (adults: 25; adolescents: 38) and those without (adults: 13; adolescents: 53) a history of self-reported RRIs based on questionnaire responses. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) covarying for gender were conducted to compare outcomes across groups.ResultsAdult runners had lower Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) scores (mean differences [MD]: -1.4, p=0.01), were more likely to report intentional weight-loss to improve athletic performance (% difference: 33.0%; p:<.001), and more frequently included resistance training into their training routines (% difference: 21.0%, p=0.01) compared to adolescents. Those with a history of RRIs were more likely to report intentional weight-loss compared to uninjured runners (% difference: 21.3; p=0.02) and had shorter single leg bridge durations than those without RRIs (RRI: 57.9±30, uninjured: 72.0±44, p=0.01).ConclusionThe findings indicate that addressing aspects of biomechanics identified by the FMS™ and behaviors of weight loss as an effort to improve performance may represent targets for the prevention of RRIs for adult and adolescent runners, given the association with history of RRIs.Level of Evidence3

Going their own way-male recreational runners and running-related injuries: A qualitative thematic analysis.

ObjectiveRecreational running is one of the most common physical leisure activities worldwide and is associated with high rates of running related injury (RRI). Little is known of the perceptions of male recreational runners regarding the aetiology and management of RRI.DesignUtilising an interpretive phenomenological analysis framework, qualitative data was gathered from participants via interview, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop insights into the experiences and perceptions of the participants in relation to RRI.Materials and methodsTwo focus groups with a total of six (mean age 37.8 ± 9.5 years, 16.5 ± 13.1 years running experience) male recreational runners were used to obtain data regarding their understanding of RRI causation, prevention and management. Interviews were evaluated using a six-phase reflexive thematic analysis approach to generate and interpret themes within the data.ResultsThree themes (Mind, Body and Education) were identified by the analysis as critical to RRI avoidance. Mind refers to the self-understanding and self-management of personal limits required for RRI prevention. Body reflects a degree of physical conditioning necessary for injury free running, while Education indicates an understanding of how to correctly structure a running program. When viewed together these themes can be seen to form an ‘internal locus of injury’ model which highlights the runners’ beliefs that RRI are related to their decisions regarding training and running, and that avoidance of injury lies within their personal control.ConclusionRecreational runners rely on self-management, in preference to professional advice, to manage training loads, fitness and RRI. Health care professionals involved with this population may consider the use of online resources, a preferred option of runners, to assist runners to build their knowledge base and support their development to experienced runners.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Risk Factors for Running-Related Injuries among South African Trail Runners.

Trail running involves running on varying natural terrains, often including large elevation gains/losses. Trail running has a high risk of injury, and runners often participate in remote regions where medical support is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine the epidemiology, clinical characteristic, and associated injury risk factors among trail runners. A modified Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire for Health Problems (OSTRC-H) was used biweekly to collect running-related injury (RRI) and training history data prospectively, among 152 participants (males n = 120, females n = 32) over 30 weeks. We report an overall injury rate of 19.6 RRIs per 1000 h and an RRI mean prevalence of 12.3%. The leading anatomical site of RRIs was the lower limb (82.9%), affecting the knee (29.8%), shin/lower leg (18.0%), and the foot/toes (13.7%). A history of previous RRI in the past 12 months (p = 0.0032) and having a chronic disease (p = 0.0188) are independent risk factors for RRIs among trail runners. Two in three trail runners sustain an RRI mainly affecting the knee, shin/lower leg, and foot/toes. A history of previous RRI in the past 12 months and a having chronic disease is independently associated with RRI among trail runners. These results could be used to develop future RRI prevention strategies, combined with clinical knowledge and experience.

Dose-response effects of forefoot and arch orthotic components on the center of pressure trajectory during running in pronated feet

BackgroundFoot orthoses are widely used in runners with pronated feet, who are characterized with large forefoot abduction and arch deformation during gait. However, the relationship between the amount of forefoot and arch orthotic correction and the alterations in foot biomechanics remains unclear. Research questionThis study aimed to determine dose-response effects of foot orthoses with forefoot wedge and arch support components on the center of pressure (COP) trajectories and pressure distribution during running in symptomatic pronated feet. MethodsFifteen recreational runners participated in this study. A pressure plate was used to measure plantar pressures during running with control shoe only and ten foot orthoses, varying in forefoot wedges (5 levels) and arch supports (2 levels). The COP trajectory across the entire stance phase was compared between orthotic and control conditions using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping. The differences in the force-time integral (FTI) and temporal variables were explored between conditions using repeated measures ANOVAs. The main effect of the two orthotic components and their interaction on tested variables were examined using two-way ANOVAs. ResultsA forefoot wedge, whether laterally or medially located, shifted the COP trajectory laterally during some subphases of running (p < 0.05), while using an arch support only had minimal effect on the COP. Almost all orthoses reduced the FTI on the 2nd metatarsal and medial heel, and only medial forefoot wedges reduced the FTI on the hallux. There was a linear effect of forefoot wedges on the medial-lateral COP displacements during the propulsion phase, but no interactions were found between two orthotic components. SignificanceThese findings suggest that forefoot orthotic components rather than arch supports are effective in altering forefoot dynamics in runners with pronated feet. This study could have implications for foot orthotic prescription and running-related injury prevention for individuals with pronated feet.

Predictive Effect of Well-Known Risk Factors and Foot-Core Training in Lower Limb Running-Related Injuries in Recreational Runners: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Running carries the risk of several types of running-related injuries (RRIs), especially in the lower limbs. The variety of risk factors and the lack of strong evidence for several of these injury risks hinder the ability to draw assertive conclusions about them, hampering the implementation of effective preventive strategies. Because the etiology of RRIs seems to be multifactorial, the presence of RRI risk factors might influence the outcome of therapeutic strategies in different ways. Thus, further investigations on how risk and protective factors influence the incidence and prevention of RRIs should be conducted. Purpose: To investigate the predictive effect of well-known risk factors and 1 protective factor—foot-core training—on the incidence of lower limb RRIs in recreational runners. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Middle- and long-distance recreational runners (N = 118) were assessed at baseline and randomly allocated to either an intervention group (n = 57) or a control group (n = 61). The intervention group underwent an 8-week (3 times/wk) foot-core training program. Participants were followed for a year after baseline assessment for the occurrence of RRIs. Logistic regression with backward elimination of variables was used to develop a model for prediction of RRI in recreational runners. Candidate predictor variables included age, sex, body mass index, years of running practice, number of races, training volume, training frequency, previous RRI, and the foot-core exercise training. Results: The final logistic regression model included 3 variables. As previously shown, the foot-core exercise program is a protective factor for RRIs (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15-0.98). In addition, older age (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.14) and higher training volume (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03) were risk factors for RRIs. Conclusion: The foot-core training was identified as a protective effect against lower limb RRI, which can be negatively influenced by older age and higher weekly training volume. The predictive model showed that RRIs should be considered a multivariate entity owing to the interaction among several factors. Registration: NCT02306148 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

RunIn3: the development process of a running-related injury prevention programme

BackgroundRunning is an important type of exercise to keep people physically active. However, running also carries a risk of developing running-related injuries (RRI). Therefore, effective and evidence-based RRI prevention programmes...

Injuries and Training Practices in Competitive Adolescent Distance Runners: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Distance running is one of the most popular sports around the world. The epidemiology of running-related injury (RRI) has been investigated in adults, but few studies have focused on adolescent distance runners.Objectives: (1) To provide descriptive epidemiology of RRI (risks, rates, body regions/areas, and severity) and examine the training practices (frequency, volume, and intensity) of competitive adolescent distance runners (13–18 years) in England, and (2) to describe potential risk factors of RRI.Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used. Adolescent distance runners (n = 113) were recruited from England Athletics affiliated clubs. Participants voluntarily completed an online questionnaire between April and December 2018. At the time of completion, responses were based on the participant's previous 12-months of distance running participation. Incidence proportions (IP) and incidence rates (IR) were calculated.Results: The IP for “all RRI” was 68% (95% CI: 60–77), while the IR was 6.3/1,000 participation hours (95% CI: 5.3–7.4). The most commonly injured body areas were the knee, foot/toes, and lower leg; primarily caused by overuse. The number of training sessions per week (i.e., frequency) significantly increased with chronological age, while a large proportion of participants (58%) self-reported a high level of specialisation.Conclusions: RRI is common in competitive adolescent distance runners. These descriptive data provide guidance for the development of RRI prevention measures. However, analytical epidemiology is required to provide better insight into potential RRI risk factors in this specific population.

Cost-effectiveness and implementation process of a running-related injury prevention program (RunIn3): Protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundRunning is one of the most popular and accessible physical activities in the world. However, running-related injuries are unfortunately very common. Scientific evidence is limited and scarce regarding (cost-)effectiveness and implementation process of interventions for running-related injuries prevention. Thus, the objective of this study will be to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation process of a running-related injury prevention program (RunIn3). MethodsThis is the protocol of a pragmatic hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. There will be 530 runners over 18 years old, without running-related injuries in the last 3 months from São Paulo, Brazil. This program will be delivered online with two broad actions: (1) to provide feedback on individual training characteristics and running-related injury risk; and (2) providing/enhancing knowledge, skills and self-efficacy on running-related injury preventive behaviors. The primary outcome will be the proportion of runners reporting running-related injuries. The secondary outcomes will be preventive behaviors, direct and indirect costs, and implementation outcomes. The main effectiveness analysis on the primary outcome will be performed using linear probability mixed models in order to allow outcome changes over time and to yield the absolute risk reduction between-groups. DiscussionThe main hypothesis of this study is that the RunIn3 program will be effective in reducing the running-related injury risk and in promoting preventive behavior, either by increasing the frequency of healthy behaviors or by reducing the frequency of risk behaviors. Moreover, if the RunIn3 program is effective in reducing the running-related injuries risk, we believe that this effect would go alongside with a reduction of societal costs. Trail registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT03892239) Registered 5 February 2019 - Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03892239.

In training for a marathon: Runners and running-related injury prevention

ObjectiveTo investigate which preventive measures runners use when preparing for a half- or full-marathon and whether the use of these measures at baseline and during the preparation-period differs between runners who sustained no/non-substantial running-related injuries (NSIRs) or substantial running-related injuries (SIRs). DesignProspective cohort study. Setting16-week period before the Utrecht Marathon. ParticipantsRunners who subscribed for the half- or full-marathon. Main outcome measuresThe occurrence of RRIs was registered every 2-weeks, using the Dutch version of the Oslo Sport Trauma Research Center (OSTRC) questionnaire on Health Problems. The OSTRC was used to differentiate between runners with SIRs (question 2/3 score>12) and NSIRs (question 2/3 score<13). The use of different preventive measures, was registered every 4-weeks. Results51.6% of the runners reported at least one RRI in the 12-months prior to this study (history of RRIs). The SIRs with a history of RRIs more often asked for running shoe advice than NSIRs with a history of RRIs (67.9%vs43.4%, P < 0.05); 18.9% of the SIRs with a history of RRIs used supportive materials for knee and/or ankle versus 0% of NSIRs with a history of RRIs (P < 0.05). ConclusionSIRs with a history of RRIs might be using their preventive measures for symptom reduction or secondary prevention.

Effects of tailored advice on injury prevention knowledge and behaviours in runners: Secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo determine whether biweekly tailored advice was more effective than general advice at baseline alone for enhancing evidence-based running-related injury (RRI) prevention knowledge and behaviours in runners. DesignRandomised controlled trial, blinded statistical analysis, secondary analysis. SettingRecreational running clinics. ParticipantsRunning clinics were cluster randomised into intervention or control groups. All participants (n = 51) received general RRI prevention advice (baseline), after which the intervention group (n = 31) received additional biweekly tailored advice (weeks 3–11), before all participants completed a Final Questionnaire (week 13). Main outcome measuresBetween-group differences in change of evidence-based RRI prevention knowledge and behaviours. ResultsCompared to baseline, the number of correct knowledge responses significantly increased in the intervention group (5.77, 95% CI 4.73, 6.81) and remained unchanged in controls (0.25, 95% CI -1.04, 1.55), outlining a positive effect only in the intervention group (p = 2.06 × 10-8). The number of correct behaviour responses significantly increased in the intervention group (1.94, 95% CI 0.94, 2.93) however this increase was not significantly greater than controls (p = 0.075). ConclusionsBiweekly tailored advice improved RRI prevention knowledge in runners. Further research into the impact of knowledge and behavioural change on RRI occurrence is warranted.ISRCTN 17357362

The Effectiveness of a Running-related Injury Prevention Program in Runners

The Effectiveness of a Running-related Injury Prevention Program in Runners

Effectiveness of online tailored advice to prevent running-related injuries and promote preventive behaviour in Dutch trail runners: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTrail running is popular worldwide, but there is no preventive intervention for running-related injury (RRI).AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of adding online tailored advice (TrailS6) to general advice on (1) the...

From control to causation: Validating a ‘complex systems model’ of running-related injury development and prevention

IntroductionThere is a need for an ecological and complex systems approach for better understanding the development and prevention of running-related injury (RRI). In a previous article, we proposed a prototype model of the Australian recreational distance running system which was based on the Systems Theoretic Accident Mapping and Processes (STAMP) method. That model included the influence of political, organisational, managerial, and sociocultural determinants alongside individual-level factors in relation to RRI development. The purpose of this study was to validate that prototype model by drawing on the expertise of both systems thinking and distance running experts. Materials and methodsThis study used a modified Delphi technique involving a series of online surveys (December 2016- March 2017). The initial survey was divided into four sections containing a total of seven questions pertaining to different features associated with the prototype model. Consensus in opinion about the validity of the prototype model was reached when the number of experts who agreed or disagreed with survey statement was ≥75% of the total number of respondents. ResultsA total of two Delphi rounds was needed to validate the prototype model. Out of a total of 51 experts who were initially contacted, 50.9% (n = 26) completed the first round of the Delphi, and 92.3% (n = 24) of those in the first round participated in the second. Most of the 24 full participants considered themselves to be a running expert (66.7%), and approximately a third indicated their expertise as a systems thinker (33.3%). After the second round, 91.7% of the experts agreed that the prototype model was a valid description of the Australian distance running system. ConclusionThis is the first study to formally examine the development and prevention of RRI from an ecological and complex systems perspective. The validated model of the Australian distance running system facilitates theoretical advancement in terms of identifying practical system-wide opportunities for the implementation of sustainable RRI prevention interventions. This ‘big picture’ perspective represents the first step required when thinking about the range of contributory causal factors that affect other system elements, as well as runners' behaviours in relation to RRI risk.

A framework for the etiology of running-related injuries.

The etiology of running-related injury is important to consider as the effectiveness of a given running-related injury prevention intervention is dependent on whether etiologic factors are readily modifiable and consistent with a biologically plausible causal mechanism. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to present an evidence-informed conceptual framework outlining the multifactorial nature of running-related injury etiology. In the framework, four mutually exclusive parts are presented: (a) Structure-specific capacity when entering a running session; (b) structure-specific cumulative load per running session; (c) reduction in the structure-specific capacity during a running session; and (d) exceeding the structure-specific capacity. The framework can then be used to inform the design of future running-related injury prevention studies, including the formation of research questions and hypotheses, as well as the monitoring of participation-related and non-participation-related exposures. In addition, future research applications should focus on addressing how changes in one or more exposures influence the risk of running-related injury. This necessitates the investigation of how different factors affect the structure-specific load and/or the load capacity, and the dose-response relationship between running participation and injury risk. Ultimately, this direction allows researchers to move beyond traditional risk factor identification to produce research findings that are not only reliably reported in terms of the observed cause-effect association, but also translatable in practice.

Closing Pandora's Box: adapting a systems ergonomics methodology for better understanding the ecological complexity underpinning the development and prevention of running-related injury

ABSTRACTThe popularity of running as a form of exercise continues to increase dramatically worldwide. Alongside this participation growth is the burden of running-related injury (RRI). Over the past four decades, traditional scientific research applications have primarily attempted to isolate discrete risk factors for RRI using observational study designs as commonly used in public health epidemiology. Unfortunately, only very few randomised controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy associated with a well-specified RRI prevention intervention. Even though the knowledge about risk factors as generated in observational studies is valuable for better understanding why RRI develops, it nonetheless means that there remains a major knowledge gap about how best to prevent it, especially in a way that fully addresses all causal factors. Alongside the continuing use of traditional scientific approaches, a particular systems ergonomics methodology should also be considered in light of its potential to visualise the complete distance running system. This article adapts the Systems Theoretic Accident Mapping and Processes (STAMP) model to the RRI research prevention context. The direct application of STAMP might offer new knowledge about how to prevent RRI, such as exposing questions around the feasibility of adopting novel injury prevention interventions that do not directly target runners themselves.

The NLstart2run study: health effects of a running promotion program in novice runners, design of a prospective cohort study

BackgroundRunning is associated with desirable lifestyle changes. Therefore several initiatives have been undertaken to promote running. Exact data on the health effects as a result of participating in a short-term running promotion program, however, is scarce. One important reason for dropout from a running program is a running-related injury (RRI). The incidence of RRIs is high, especially in novice runners. Several studies examined potential risk factors for RRIs, however, due to the often underpowered studies it is not possible to reveal the complex mechanism leading to an RRI yet.The primary objectives are to determine short- and long-term health effects of a nationwide “Start to Run” program and to identify determinants for RRIs in novice runners. Secondary objectives include examining reasons and determinants for dropout, medical consumption and economical consequences of RRIs as a result of a running promotion program.Methods/designThe NLstart2run study is a multi-center prospective cohort study with a follow-up at 6, 12, 24 and 52 weeks. All participants that sign up for the Start to Run program in 2013, which is offered by the Dutch Athletics Federation, will be asked to participate in the study.During the running program a digital running log will be completed by the participants every week to administer exposure and running related pain. After the running program the log will be completed every second week. An RRI is defined as any musculoskeletal ailment of the lower extremity or back that the participant attributed to running and hampers running ability for at least one week.DiscussionThe NLstart2run study will provide insight into the short- and long-term health effects as a result of a short-term running promotion program. Reasons and determinants for dropout from a running promotion program will be examined as well. The study will result in several leads for future RRI prevention and as a result minimize dropout due to injury. This information may increase the effectiveness of future running promotion programs and will thereby contribute positively to public health.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register NTR3676. The NTR is part of the WHO Primary Registries.

The effectiveness of a preconditioning programme on preventing running-related injuries in novice runners: a randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesThere is no consensus on the aetiology and prevention of running-related injuries in runners. Preconditioning studies among different athlete populations show positive effects on the incidence of sports injuries.HypothesisA 4-week...

Prevention of Running-Related Injuries Among Novices

Prevention of Running-Related Injuries Among Novices

Running-related injury prevention through innate impact-moderating behavior

The purpose of these experiments was to test the Robbins and Hanna hypothesis, which relates differences in discomfort from localized deformation at certain positions on the plantar surface to protective behavior (intrinsic foot shock absorption). A penetrometer was used to quantify the relations between localized load and pain and between load and depth of deformation. The magnitude of load required to elicit pain varied significantly (P less than 0.005) in relation to position on the plantar surface. With a load of 9 kg and a 10 mm spherical end on the penetrometer, 6% of the sample reported pain at the heelpad, 32% at the distal first digit, and 66% at the first metatarsal-phalangeal joint. This pattern was predicted by the Robbins and Hanna thesis. Two deformation patterns were observed which were best explained by deformation constraint by tight trabecular tethering of the epithelial membrane at the heelpad and distal first digit and unrestricted deformation due to loose trabecular tethering of the epithelial membrane at the first metatarsal-phalangeal joint. These data provide insight into how, when barefoot, the plantar surface resists perforation yet provides protection to local bony structures. These data further support the notion that plantar sensory feedback plays a central role in safe and effective locomotion.