ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026
Implementing sports injury prevention programmes during and beyond effectiveness trials: a mixed methodologies study.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the impact of a data-feedback workshop on injury trends in a regional collegiate American football league in Japan.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a gap between the evaluation of injury prevention programmes in controlled trials and their use in real-world practice, and implementation research seeks to bridge this gap by supporting programme uptake beyond research settings. This study explored implementation processes and influencing factors during and after effectiveness trials of injury prevention programmes, and examined strategies used for scale-up following trials. Using a mixed methodologies design, corresponding authors of published injury prevention trials were contacted and invited to complete a survey on implementation activities conducted during their trial and, where applicable, during scale-up. A subsample of respondents also participated in semi-structured interviews. In total, 107 injury prevention studies were identified, of which 39 authors completed the survey and nine took part in interviews. Implementation strategies applied during trials were often underreported in published studies but were identified through the survey, with common strategies including in-person training, staff education, and the provision of supportive materials. Only approximately one-third of the studies resulted in scale-up beyond the trial context. Survey responses and interview data highlighted several facilitators and barriers relevant to both trial implementation and scale-up, such as programme context, coach and athlete motivation, and organisational support. Other factors were phase-specific: trial implementation benefited from structured programme development and close researcher involvement, whereas scale-up was more strongly influenced by limited resources and external momentum, such as public events. These findings suggest that to enhance implementation and scale-up of injury prevention programmes, implementation factors should be considered throughout both the development and evaluation phases. Systematic reporting and assessment of facilitators and barriers during trials and broader scale-up initiatives, along with transparent descriptions of implementation strategies used in effectiveness studies, are essential to improve the translation of research findings into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.