The Problem of Recurrent Injuries in Collegiate Track and Field

2Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background As with most sports, participating in Track and Field (T&F) has inherent injury risks and a previous injury often predisposes athletes to a greater future injury risk. However, the frequency and burden of recurrent injuries in collegiate T&F have not been closely examined. Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and burden of recurrent injuries in collegiate T&F and compare differences in the time loss associated with initial and recurrent injuries by sex and T&F discipline. Study Design Descriptive Epidemiology Study Methods Data from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program were analyzed to describe the frequency and burden of recurrent injuries in collegiate T&F between 2009 and 2014. Comparisons of recurrent injury proportions by T&F discipline were made using Injury Proportion Ratios (IPR) and injury-associated time loss comparisons by injury type and sex were made using Negative Binomial Regression. Results Four hundred and seventy-four injuries were reported, 13.1% of which were classified as recurrent injuries. T&F athletes who competed in jumps experienced a lower proportion of recurrent injuries (6.1%) than runners (14.6%) and throwers (19.2%) (Recurrent IPR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.88, p<0.05). When controlling for sex and injury diagnosis, T&F athletes experienced 50% greater time loss from sport following a recurrent injury than an initial injury (95% CI 17%-107%, p<0.01). Conclusions Recurrent injuries in T&F athletes account for greater time loss than initial injuries, despite sex or injury diagnosis. The current study indicates a need for further research to assess factors contributing to time loss.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hopkins, C., Kanny, S., & Headley, C. (2022). The Problem of Recurrent Injuries in Collegiate Track and Field. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 17(4), 643–647. https://doi.org/10.26603/001C.35579

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free