Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41736937›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026

Implementing sports injury prevention programmes during and beyond effectiveness trials: a mixed methodologies study.

Joske Nauta, Jelena Haugg, Rico Németh, Evert Verhagen, Carly D McKay, Femke van Nassau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joske NautaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4516-1049
Jelena HauggDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rico NémethDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Evert VerhagenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9227-8234
Carly D McKayUniversity of Bath Department for Health, Bath, UK.
Femke van NassauDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3726-550X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ImplementationInjuryPreventionReview

Identifiers

PMID41736937
PMCPMC12927292

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.