ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2023
Suggested improvements to the 11+ as identified by coaches, players, strength and conditioning staff and medical staff in New Zealand Football.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alterations in knee biomechanics and motor performance following 3 months training with the Football+ and 11+ warm-up programs among amateur female players. A three-armed cluster allocated, non-randomized intervention study.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Dissemination and implementation of injury prevention interventions: a scoping review for the Female, woman and/or girl Athlete Injury pRevention (FAIR) consensus.British journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- 'We may need some help; we are just parents who have chosen to engage in football': a qualitative study on amateur coaches' experiences of use of and support for injury prevention training in Sweden.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the experience with the 11+, attitudes towards injury prevention, and potential improvements to the 11+ and the delivery of injury prevention strategies within football. A qualitative study design was used to investigate the views of four stakeholder groups (players, coaches, strength and conditioning staff and clinicians). Twenty-two adults participated (nine women; median age 35.5 years). Participants were purposively recruited and were based in New Zealand. They represented various levels of football, including different genders, ages and levels of play. Focus group interviews were conducted, which were recorded, transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. Four key themes were identified: understanding of the 11+ injury prevention warm-up, content of an ideal injury prevention programme, structure of the programme and education, adherence and dissemination. The study found that while participants appeared to have good awareness of the existing 11+ programme and an interest in injury prevention, adherence and enthusiasm towards the programme was limited. Participants highlighted a number of elements that may help shape the development of a new injury prevention strategy, including a desire to retain many of the elements of the 11+ and to have a proven programme. Participants wanted greater variety, more football-specific elements and to implement a new strategy throughout a session, rather than being seen as a stand-alone warm-up. Whether the intervention should also include strength-based exercises, or whether this should be promoted outside of a football training session, was less certain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.