J Wilke1, D Niederer2, L Vogt2, W Banzer2. 1. Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: wilke@sport.uni-frankfurt.de. 2. Department of Sports Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the practices and attitudes of professional basketball head coaches towards injury prevention. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Elite-level basketball. PARTICIPANTS: Head coaches of all 366 German professional teams. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of injury risk screening methods, rated importance of different musculoskeletal injuries and rated effectiveness of preventive interventions. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 366 invited coaches (23%) responded to the survey. No non-response bias was detected. Only one of three teams conducts systematic injury screenings. The most commonly used test was the functional movement screen (73.1% of users), while balance and strength testing (both 38.5%) were least prevalent. Top-rated preventive interventions included balance and strength training, training of functional movement patterns, and stretching. In contrast, passive interventions, e.g. the use of orthoses, were not considered effective. The involvement of a health professional (e.g. physiotherapist) was associated with the performance of injury screening, but not with the choice of specific tests or preventive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The methods applied to conduct injury screening and prevent musculoskeletal disorders in German professional basketball teams seem only partially backed by scientific evidence. Although not correlated with the tests and interventions used, the involvement of health-related stakeholders might help to identify players at increased injury risk.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the practices and attitudes of professional basketball head coaches towards injury prevention. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Elite-level basketball. PARTICIPANTS: Head coaches of all 366 German professional teams. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of injury risk screening methods, rated importance of different musculoskeletal injuries and rated effectiveness of preventive interventions. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 366 invited coaches (23%) responded to the survey. No non-response bias was detected. Only one of three teams conducts systematic injury screenings. The most commonly used test was the functional movement screen (73.1% of users), while balance and strength testing (both 38.5%) were least prevalent. Top-rated preventive interventions included balance and strength training, training of functional movement patterns, and stretching. In contrast, passive interventions, e.g. the use of orthoses, were not considered effective. The involvement of a health professional (e.g. physiotherapist) was associated with the performance of injury screening, but not with the choice of specific tests or preventive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The methods applied to conduct injury screening and prevent musculoskeletal disorders in German professional basketball teams seem only partially backed by scientific evidence. Although not correlated with the tests and interventions used, the involvement of health-related stakeholders might help to identify players at increased injury risk.
Authors: Mary Catherine Minnig; Lauren Hawkinson; Hayley J Root; Jeffrey Driban; Lindsay J DiStefano; Leigh Callahan; Kirsten R Ambrose; Jeffrey T Spang; Yvonne M Golightly Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2022-09-27