↓ Skip to main content

From monocausality to systems thinking: a complementary and alternative conceptual approach for better understanding the development and prevention of sports injury

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Epidemiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
From monocausality to systems thinking: a complementary and alternative conceptual approach for better understanding the development and prevention of sports injury
Published in
Injury Epidemiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40621-015-0064-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Hulme, Caroline F. Finch

Abstract

The science of sports injury control, including both its cause and prevention, has largely been informed by a biomedical and mechanistic model of health. Traditional scientific practice in sports injury research has routinely involved collapsing the broader socioecological landscape down in order to analyse individual-level determinants of injury - whether biomechanical and/or behavioural. This approach has made key gains for sports injury prevention research and should be further encouraged and allowed to evolve naturally. However, the public health, Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, and injury epidemiological literature more broadly, has accepted the value of a socioecological paradigm for better understanding disease and injury processes, and sports injury research will fall further behind unless it does the same. A complementary and alternative conceptual approach towards injury control known as systems thinking that builds on socioecological science, both methodologically and analytically, is readily available and fast developing in other research areas. This review outlines the historical progression of causal concepts in the field of epidemiology over the course of the modern scientific era. From here, causal concepts in injury epidemiology, and models of aetiology as found in the context of sports injury research are presented. The paper finishes by proposing a new research agenda that considers the potential for a systems thinking approach to further enhance sports injury aetiological understanding. A complementary systems paradigm, however, will require that sports injury epidemiologists bring their knowledge and skillsets forwards in an attempt to use, adapt, and even refine existing systems-based approaches. Alongside the natural development of conventional scientific methodologies and analyses in sports injury research, progressing forwards to a systems paradigm is now required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 195 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Researcher 14 7%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 46 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 51 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 58 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 12 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,243,836
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from Injury Epidemiology
#72
of 404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,786
of 400,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Epidemiology
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 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 404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 400,191 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.