Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37342787›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2023

Mixed-methods process evaluation of the injury prevention Warming-up Hockey programme and its implementation.

Maaike Heleen Cornelissen, Ellen Kemler, Anneloes Baan, Femke van Nassau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maaike Heleen CornelissenDutch Consumer Safety Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3428-2969
Ellen KemlerDutch Consumer Safety Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3549-7091
Anneloes BaanDutch Consumer Safety Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Femke van NassauDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Warming-up Hockey (WUP) is an effective injury prevention programme to reduce acute field hockey injuries among youth. This paper describes the process evaluation of the nationwide scaling-up. We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation from September 2019 to December 2020 according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, focusing on the intervention and its implementation. We collected data through questionnaires, interviews and web/app analytics. Participants were trainers/coaches, technical/board members of hockey clubs (TBMs) and employees of the Royal Dutch Hockey Federation (KNHB). In total, 226 trainers/coaches (61 via WUP and 165 via training courses) and 14 TBMs filled in questionnaires. Ten individuals (four trainers/coaches, four TBMs and two KNHB employees) participated in semistructured interviews. The study showed the following results according to the RE-AIM framework. Reach: According to web/app analytics, 1492 new accounts were registered. Effectiveness: Overall, users were satisfied with WUP and the implementation strategies, and believed WUP could reduce field hockey injuries. Adoption: 63% of the trainers/coaches (enrolled via WUP) indicated they used WUP. Implementation: Most trainers/coaches did not use WUP during every training session or match. Most TBMs promoted WUP in their club. Implementation barriers included lack of integration with other training programmes, 'know-it-all' trainers, lack of supervision on WUP use and delayed start of implementation. Facilitators included perceived added value, information need on injury prevention in small clubs and tailored communication. Maintenance: Users planned to use WUP occasionally. The KNHB intended to integrate WUP in their newly developed Knowledge Platform. To conclude, WUP was evaluated as a useful programme, but adherence to WUP was challenging. Timely preparation and creating an implementation plan based on stakeholder input, including communication at key moments during the sports season and tailored communication, were found to be important during implementation. Findings can be useful for others planning to implement evidence-based injury prevention programmes on a larger scale.

Indexed as

Field hockeyImplementationInterventionPreventionSporting injuries

Identifiers

PMID37342787
PMCPMC10277536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.