| Title |
The Implementation of Musculoskeletal Injury-Prevention Exercise Programmes in Team Ball Sports: A Systematic Review Employing the RE-AIM Framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-014-0208-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James O’Brien, Caroline F. Finch |
| Abstract |
Team ball sports such as soccer, basketball and volleyball have high participation levels worldwide. Musculoskeletal injuries are common in team ball sports and are associated with significant treatment costs, participation loss and long-term negative side effects. The results of recent randomized controlled trials provide support for the protective effect of injury-prevention exercise programmes (IPEPs) in team ball sports, but also highlight that achieving adequate compliance can be challenging. A key process in enhancing the ultimate impact of team ball sport IPEPs is identifying the specific implementation components that influence the adoption, execution and maintenance of these interventions. Despite this, no systematic review focussing on the specific implementation components of team ball sport IPEPs has been conducted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 8% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 57% |
| Scientists | 13 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 242 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 14% |
| Researcher | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 20% |
| Unknown | 48 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 77 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 61 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,073,325
of 25,331,507 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#928
of 2,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,245
of 234,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,331,507 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.