Search

Purpose: American football is widely played by college student-athletes throughout the United States; however, the associated injury risk is greater than in other team sports. Numerous factors likely contribute to this risk, yet research identifying these risk factors is limited. The present study sought to explore the relationship between playing experience and position on injury risk in NCAA Division I college football players. Methods: Seventy-six male college student-athletes in the football program of an American NCAA Division I university participated. Injuries were recorded over 2 consecutive seasons. Players were characterized based on college year (freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior) and playing position. The effect of playing experience and position on injury incidence rates was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed-effects model, with a Poisson distribution, log-linear link function, and offset for hours of training exposure or number of in-game plays (for training and game injuries, respectively). Results: The overall rates of non-time-loss and time-loss game-related injuries were 2.1 (90% CI: 1.8-2.5) and 0.6 (90% CI: 0.4-0.8) per 1000 plays, respectively. The overall rates of non-time-loss and time-loss training-related injuries were 26.0 (90% CI: 22.6-29.9) and 7.1 (90% CI: 5.9-8.5) per 1000 h, respectively. During training, seniors and running backs displayed the greatest risk. During games, sophomores, juniors, and wide receivers were at greatest risk. Conclusions: Being aware of the elevated injury risk experienced by certain player groups may help coaches make considered decisions related to training design and player selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the recovery time course of customized wellness markers (sleep, soreness, energy, and overall wellness) in response to match play in American Division I-A college football players. Methods: A retrospective research design was used. Wellness data were collected and analyzed for 2 American college football seasons. Perceptions of soreness, sleep, energy, and overall wellness were obtained for the day before each game (GD-1) and the days after each game (GD+2, GD+3, and GD+4). Standardized effect-size (ES) analyses ± 90% confidence intervals were used to interpret the magnitude of the mean differences between all time points for the start, middle, and finish of the season, using the following qualitative descriptors: 0-0.19 trivial, 0.2-0.59 small, 0.6-1.19 moderate, 1.2-1.99 large, <2.0 very large. Results: Overall wellness showed small ES reductions on GD+2 (d = 0.22 ± 0.09, likely [94.8%]), GD+3 (d = 0.37 ± 0.15, very likely), and GD+4 (d = 0.29 ± 0.12, very likely) compared with GD-1. There were small ES reductions for soreness between GD-1 and GD+2, GD+3, and GD +4 (d = 0.21 ± 0.09, likely, d = 0.29 ± 0.12, very likely, and 0.30 ± 0.12, very likely, respectively). Small ES reductions were also evident between GD-1 and GD+3 (d = 0.21 ± 0.09, likely) for sleep. Feelings of energy showed small ESs on GD+3 (d = 0.27 ± 0.11, very likely) and GD+4 (d = 0.22 ± 0.09, likely) compared with GD-1. Conclusion: All wellness markers were likely to very likely worse on GD+3 and GD+4 than on GD-1. These findings show that perceptual wellness takes longer than 4 d to return to pregame levels and thus should be considered when prescribing training and/or recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practitioners' perceptions regarding the use and effectiveness of research evidence in sport is not well understood. The purpose of the present study was to examine practitioners' perceptions around the use, implementation, and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) in sport science in the United States of America (USA). A survey (28 items) was completed by 67 full-time staff who were a physical performance team member employed by universities or professional sporting organizations in the USA. Questions included the use of research, contribution of research areas, barriers to accessing and implementing EBP, and methods of feedback to the coach and players. All respondents (100%) stated they used research evidence in their performance/training program, ranking research as contributing most (largest contribution = 1 to smallest contribution = 4) to individualized preparation or recovery recommendations (1.98 ± 1.02). The top 3 preferred sources of information were "peer-reviewed research" (100% of respondents), "conferences/seminars" (76%), and "practitioners within your sport" (63%). Commonly reported perceived barriers between accessing and implementing research were "lack of staff" (accessing = 33%, implementing = 46%) "time" (accessing = 38%, implementing = 48%) and nonapplicable research (accessing = 33%, implementing = 37%), whereas "poor player compliance" was a clear barrier to implementing EBP (56%). Practitioners most preferred, and actual, method of feedback for coaching staff (87% for both) and players (94 and 95%, respectively) was "informal conversations/speaking." Improved access to educational and financial resources, increased integration of staff in coach settings and understanding of player/coach contexts may help to alleviate barriers to EBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]