↓ Skip to main content

Increasing compliance with neuromuscular training to prevent ankle sprain in sport: does the ‘Strengthen your ankle’ mobile App make a difference? A randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increasing compliance with neuromuscular training to prevent ankle sprain in sport: does the ‘Strengthen your ankle’ mobile App make a difference? A randomised controlled trial
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095290
Pubmed ID
Authors

M Van Reijen, I Vriend, V Zuidema, W van Mechelen, E A Verhagen

Abstract

E-health has the potential to facilitate implementation of effective measures to prevent sports injuries. We evaluated whether an interactive mobile application containing a proven effective exercise programme to prevent recurrent ankle sprains resulted in higher compliance as compared with regular written exercise materials. 220 athletes participated in this randomised controlled trial with a follow-up of 8 weeks; 110 athletes received a booklet explaining an 8-week neuromuscular training programme; 110 athletes participated in the same programme in an interactive mobile App (Strengthen your ankle). The primary outcome was compliance with the exercise programme. Secondary outcome measure was the incidence density of self-reported recurrent ankle sprains. The mean compliance to the exercise scheme was 73.3% (95% CI 67.7% to 78.1%) in the App group, compared with 76.7% (95% CI 71.9% to 82.3%) in the Booklet group. No significant difference in compliance was found between groups. The incidence densities of self-reported time-loss recurrences were not significantly different between both groups (HR 3.07; 95% CI 0.62 to 15.20). This study shows that the method of implementing the exercises by using an App or a Booklet does not lead to different compliance rates. The use of a mobile App or a Booklet lead to similar compliance and injury rates in the short term. The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR 4027. The NTR is part of the WHO Primary Registries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 50 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 47 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Sports and Recreations 24 11%
Psychology 7 3%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 60 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,017,129
of 24,804,602 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#2,739
of 6,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,055
of 404,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#59
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,804,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 66.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 404,598 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.