Back

The Running Injury Continuum: A qualitative examination of recreational runners' description and management of injury

Lacey, A.; Whyte, E.; O'Keeffe, S.; O'Connor, S.; Burke, A.; Moran, K.

2023-08-04 sports medicine
10.1101/2023.07.28.23293308 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionA critical step in understanding and preventing running-related injuries (RRIs) is appropriately defining RRIs. Current definitions of RRIs may not represent the full process of injury development, failing to capture lower levels of injury that many athletes continue to train through. Understanding runners description and management of the injury development process may allow for a more appropriate examination of all levels of injury. This study aimed to examine recreational runners description and management of the injury development process. MethodsA qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Seven semi-structured focus groups with male (n=13) and female (n=18) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were reflexively thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding. Multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. ResultsRunners describe injury on a nine-level continuum, ranging from injury-free to career-ending injury. There are lower and higher levels of injury. Each level of injury is described across four categories of descriptors; physical description, outcome (effect on running and daily life), psychological description, and management. ConclusionThe Running Injury Continuum is a tool that can be used for injury surveillance (for healthcare professionals and researchers) and for research investigating RRI risk factors. Healthcare professionals, researchers and coaches must ensure they monitor the development of all levels of RRIs, across all categories of descriptors. Runners need to be educated regarding appropriate self-management strategies for lower level injuries, with access to evidence-based information being a critical management tool.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.