ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

In 2013, the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire (OSTRC-O) was developed to record the magnitude, symptoms and consequences of overuse injuries in sport. Shortly afterwards, a modified version of the OSTRC-O was developed to capture all types of injuries and illnesses—The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire on Health Problems (OSTRC-H). Since then, users from a range of research and clinical environments have identified areas in which these questionnaires may be improved. Therefore, the structure and content of the questionnaires was reviewed by an international panel consisting of the original developers, other user groups and experts in sports epidemiology and applied statistical methodology. Following a review panel meeting in October 2017, several changes were made to the questionnaires, including minor wording alterations, changes to the content of one question and the addition of questionnaire logic. In this paper, we present the updated versions of the questionnaires (OSTRC-O2 and OSTRC-H2), assess the likely impact of the updates on future data collection and discuss practical issues related to application of the questionnaires. We believe this update will improve respondent adherence and improve the quality of collected data.
390 ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Improved reporting of overuse injuries and health
problems in sport: an update of the Oslo Sport
Trauma Research Centerquestionnaires
Benjamin Clarsen ,1 Roald Bahr,1 Grethe Myklebust,1 Stig Haugsboe Andersson,1
Sean Iain Docking ,2 Michael Drew,3 Caroline F Finch ,4
Lauren Victoria Fortington ,4 Joar Harøy ,1 Karim M Khan ,5 Bill Moreau,6,7
Isabel S Moore ,8 Merete Møller,9 Dustin Nabhan ,1,10
Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen ,11 Kati Pasanen ,12,13 Martin Schwellnus,14
Torbjørn Soligard ,15 Evert Verhagen 16
Consensus statement
To cite: ClarsenB,
BahrR, MyklebustG,
etal. Br J Sports Med
2020;54:390–396.
For numbered affiliations see
end of article.
Correspondence to
Dr Benjamin Clarsen,
Department of Sports Medicine,
Norwegian School of Sport
Sciences, Oslo Sports Trauma
Research Center, Oslo 0806,
Norway; ben. clarsen@ nih. no
Accepted 28 January 2020
Published Online First
14February2020
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2020. No
commercial re- use. See rights
and permissions. Published
by BMJ.
ABSTRACT
In 2013, the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center
Overuse Injury Questionnaire (OSTRC- O) was developed
to record the magnitude, symptoms and consequences
of overuse injuries in sport. Shortly afterwards, a
modified version of the OSTRC- O was developed to
capture all types of injuries and illnesses—The Oslo
Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire on
Health Problems (OSTRC- H). Since then, users from
a range of research and clinical environments have
identified areas in which these questionnaires may
be improved. Therefore, the structure and content of
the questionnaires was reviewed by an international
panel consisting of the original developers, other user
groups and experts in sports epidemiology and applied
statistical methodology. Following a review panel
meeting in October 2017, several changes were made to
the questionnaires, including minor wording alterations,
changes to the content of one question and the addition
of questionnaire logic. In this paper, we present the
updated versions of the questionnaires (OSTRC- O2 and
OSTRC- H2), assess the likely impact of the updates on
future data collection and discuss practical issues related
to application of the questionnaires. We believe this
update will improve respondent adherence and improve
the quality of collected data.
INTRODUCTION
The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC)
Overuse Injury Questionnaire was developed
to address challenges which arise when using
traditional sports injury surveillance methods to
document the epidemiology of overuse injuries.1
Traditionally, most injury surveillance studies used
time loss from sport as the primary criterion for
defining the occurrence of injury and the duration of
time lost as a surrogate measure of injury severity.2
This approach underestimates the full impact of
overuse injuries because athletes with an overuse
injury can often continue to train and compete
despite persistent injury- associated symptoms and
limitations.3 The OSTRC Overuse Injury Question-
naire contains four domains which seek to evaluate
the consequences of overuse injuries on athletes: (1)
sports participation, (2) training volume, (3) sports
performance and (4) pain (table 1, first column). By
administering the questionnaire at regular intervals
(eg, weekly), clinicians and researchers are able to
monitor how the consequences of overuse injury
change over time.
The OSTRC Overuse Injury Questionnaire
was initially developed to collect information on
overuse injuries in specific, predefined, anatom-
ical areas. However, it quickly became apparent
that the approach was not only suited to recording
overuse injuries—athletes may also continue to
participate after sustaining acute injuries or while
suffering illness.4 Therefore, a modified version
of the overuse injury questionnaire was developed
that allowed athletes to record all types of health
problems—the OSTRC Questionnaire on Health
Problems.5 In this version, the four key questions
referred to all types of health problems (table 2,
first column), and if an athlete reported a problem,
he/she then had to provide additional information
such as the type of problem and its location or main
symptoms.5
The OSTRC overuse injury and health prob-
lems questionnaires have been widely cited and
adopted in sports injury research since their initial
publications in 2013 and 2014. A citation search
performed in March 2019 using Thompson- Reuters
Web of Science database identified 254 citations of
the questionnaires, including 59 and 14 studies that
used the overuse injury and health problem ques-
tionnaires, respectively, to collect data.
In addition to its research applications, the
OSTRC health problems questionnaire has also
gained popularity as a clinical monitoring tool to
evaluate health trends and ensure timely care to
athletes in a range of elite sports organisations.
Users include, among others, the Norwegian, US,
Australian and Dutch Olympic programmes and
the Norwegian, US, Dutch and German Paralympic
programmes.
Due to this successful uptake, user groups from a
range of research and clinical environments gained
experience using the OSTRC questionnaires and
identified several issues requiring consideration. To
address these issues, which ranged from wording
clarification to data analysis principles, the original
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
391
ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
Table 1 Original and updated versions of the OSTRC- O questionnaire, with changes highlighted in red
The OSTRC- O
Original version (OSTRC- O)Updated version (OSTRC- O2)
Please answer all questions regardless of whether or not you have problems with your
knees. Select the alternative that is most appropriate for you, and in the case that you
are unsure, try to give an answer as best you can anyway.
Please answer all questions regardless of whether or not you have problems in
your(insert anatomical location here, eg, knees). Select the alternative that is most
appropriate for you, and in the case that you are unsure, try to answer as best you can
anyway.
The term ‘knee problems’ refers to pain, ache, stiffness, swelling, instability/giving way,
locking or other complaints related to one or both knees.
The term ‘(location) problems’ refers to (insert common symptoms or injury
consequences here, eg, pain, ache, stiffness, clicking/catching, swelling, instability/giving
way, locking)or other complaints related to your (location).
Question 1 Question 1—Participation
Have you had any difficulties participating in normal training and competition due to
knee problems during the past week?
Have you had any difficulties participating in training and competition due to (location)
problems during the past 7 days?
a. Full participation without knee problems a. Full participation without (location) problems
b. Full participation, but with knee problems b. Full participation, but with (location) problems
c. Reduced participation due to knee problems c. Reduced participation due to (location) problems
d. Cannot participate due to knee problems d. Could not participate due to (location) problems
Question 2 Question 2—Modified training/competition
To what extent have you reduced you training volume due to knee problems during the
past week?
To what extent have you modified your training or competition due to (location)
problems during the past 7 days?
a. No reduction a. No modification
b. To a minor extent b. To a minor extent
c. To a moderate extent c. To a moderate extent
d. To a major extent d. To a major extent
e. Cannot participate at all
Question 3 Question 3—Performance
To what extent have knee problems affected your performance during the past week? To what extent have (location) problems affected your performance during the past 7
days?
a. No effect a. No effect
b. To a minor extent b. To a minor extent
c. To a moderate extent c. To a moderate extent
d. To a major extent d. To a major extent
e. Cannot participate at all
Question 4 Question 4—Pain
To what extent have you experienced knee pain related to your sport during the past
week?
To what extent have you experienced (location) pain related to your sport during the
past 7 days?
a. No pain a. No pain
b. Mild pain b. Mild pain
c. Moderate pain c. Moderate pain
d. Severe pain d. Severe pain
OSTRC- O, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire.
developers of the questionnaire initiated a review process in
August 2017 that included consulting with an international
panel of researchers and clinicians who represented key user
groups. The process included a review panel meeting in Oslo on
3 and 4 October 2017.
In this paper, we summarise the topics discussed during the
meeting and introduce several changes to the wording, structure
and logic of the original questionnaires. We also analyse new and
previously collected data to illustrate the impact of the changes.
We refer to the OSTRC Overuse Injury Questionnaire and
OSTRC Questionnaire on Health Problems collectively as the
OSTRC questionnaires except where it is necessary to specify one
in particular. In those cases, we use the abbreviation OSTRC- O
and OSTRC- H.6 We use the suffix ‘2’ to specify the updated
versions of the questionnaires (ie, OSTRC- O2 and OSTRC- H2).
QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PROCEDURE
Review panel members were identified by the primary author (BC)
based on their experience using the OSTRC questionnaires for
research or clinical purposes or their expertise in epidemiological
and applied statistics methodology in the sports medicine context.
Prior to the meeting, the primary author had informal discussions
with all panel members to establish the meeting agenda. Panel
members who were unable to attend the meeting (n=5) provided a
written summary of their positions on each agenda item. Following
the meeting, a detailed summary was distributed to the entire panel,
including the proposed changes to the questionnaire wording,
logic and response categories. The panel agreed unanimously on
all changes and contributed as authors of this manuscript.
CHANGES TO THE OSTRC QUESTIONNAIRES
We considered each of the four key OSTRC questions in detail
and discussed the need for changes to the wording, logic and
response categories. Proposed changes were categorised as minor
or more substantial. A more substantial change was defined as one
where the panel agreed that such a change required validation.
Minor (inconsequential) wording changes
The panel noted several areas of ambiguity and inconsistency
between questions in the original questionnaires and agreed to
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
392 ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
Table 2 Original and updated versions of the OSTRC- H questionnaire, with changes highlighted in red
The OSTRC- H
Original version (OSTRC- H)Updated version (OSTRC- H2)
Please answer all questions regardless of whether or not you have experienced health
problems in the past week. Select the alternative that is most appropriate for you, and in
the case that you are unsure, try to give an answer as best you can anyway.
Please answer all questions regardless of whether or not you have experienced health
problems in the past 7 days. Select the alternative that is most appropriate for you, and
in the case that you are unsure, try to answer as best you can anyway.
If you have several illness or injury problems, please refer to the one that has been your
worst problem this week. You will have a chance to register other problems at the end of
the questionnaire.
A health problem is any condition that you consider to be a reduction in your normal
state of full health, irrespective of its consequences on your sports participation or
performance, or whether you have sought medical attention. This may include, but is not
limited to, injury, illness, pain or mental health conditions.
If you have several health problems, please begin by recording your worst problem in
the past 7 days. You will have a chance to register other problems at the end of the
questionnaire.
Question 1 Question 1—Participation
Have you had any difficulties participating in normal training and competition due to
injury, illness or other health problems during the past week?
Have you had any difficulties participating in training and competition due to injury,
illness or other health problems during the past 7 days?
a. Full participation without health problems a. Full participation without health problems
b. Full participation, but with injury/illness b. Full participation, but with a health problem
c. Reduced participation due to injury/illness c. Reduced participation due to a health problem
d. Cannot participate due to injury/illness d. Could not participate due to a health problem
Question 2 Question 2—Modified training/competition
To what extent have you reduced you training volume due to injury, illness or other
health problems during the past week?
To what extent have you modified your training or competition due to injury, illness or
other health problems during the past 7 days?
a. No reduction a. No modification
b. To a minor extent b. To a minor extent
c. To a moderate extent c. To a moderate extent
d. To a major extent d. To a major extent
e. Cannot participate at all
Question 3 Question 3—Performance
To what extent has injury, illness or other health problems affected your performance
during the past week?
To what extent has injury, illness or other health problems affected your performance
during the past 7 days?
a. No effect a. No effect
b. To a minor extent b. To a minor extent
c. To a moderate extent c. To a moderate extent
d. To a major extent d. To a major extent
e. Cannot participate at all
Question 4 Question 4—Symptoms
To what extent have you experienced symptoms/health complaints during the past
week?
To what extent have you experienced symptoms/health complaints during the past 7
days?
a. No symptoms/health complaints a. No symptoms/health complaints
b. To a mild extent b. To a mild extent
c. To a moderate extent c. To a moderate extent
d. To a severe extent d. To a severe extent
OSTRC- H, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire on Health Problems.
make minor changes to the questionnaire instructions and to the
wording of all four questions. These changes included replacing
‘the past week’ with ‘the past 7 days’, replacing ‘cannot’ with
‘could not’ and adding titles to differentiate the questions
(tables 1 and 2, second columns).
In the OSTRC- H2, we replaced ‘injury/illness’ with ‘health
problem’ in the instructions, questions and response categories.
In the OSTRC- H2 instructions, we included the following defi-
nition of health problem: ‘A health problem is any condition that
you consider to be a reduction in your normal state of full health,
irrespective of its consequences on your sports participation or
performance, or whether you have sought medical attention. This
may include, but is not limited to, injury, illness, pain or mental
health conditions.
This definition is consistent with the International Olympic
Committee consensus statement on methods for recording and
reporting epidemiological data on injury and illness in sports.7
The original OSTRC- O was published using only the knee,
shoulder and low back as example areas. However, some
readers appear to have misinterpreted this as meaning that the
OSTRC- O is a specific knee, shoulder and low back question-
naire. Therefore, we made minor changes to the OSTRC- O
template to clarify that the questionnaire is applicable to any
anatomical region (table 1, second column).
More substantial changes
We recognised that reducing training volume is only one way in
which an athlete can modify their normal sports participation in
response to a health problem. The original question may have
missed other common modifications such as reduced intensity,
changes in the type of training (eg, cycling instead of running)
or changing roles in a team (tactical/positional). To address this,
we changed the wording of question 2; instead of asking about
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
393
ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
Table 3 Comparison between the responses to the old and new
wording of question 2
New wording
Training or competition modification
2a 2b 2c 2d 2e
Old
wording
Training
reduction
2a 52 15 2 0 0
2b 11 14 1 0 0
2c 0 1 2 0 0
2d 0 1 1 9 0
2e 0 0 0 1 8
Data were collected from 90 athletes over 13 weeks; a total of 596 questionnaire
responses were collected, of which 118 included a health problem.
Column and row headings 2a–e represent response categories to question 2 as
shown in (tables1 and 2).
In this analysis, we did not apply gatekeeper logic and thus included a fifth
response category (could not participate at all) to the new question.
Table 4 Comparison of the number of injuries and illnesses identified
when gatekeeper logic is and is not applied to question 1
No logic Gatekeeper logic
Difference
(%)
All problems
Injuries 3460 3045 12.0
Illnesses 1857 1574 15.2
Substantial problems
Injuries 1245 1236 0.7
Illnesses 1049 1024 2.4
Time loss problems*
Injuries 1295 1244 3.9
Illnesses 1251 1171 6.4
Data are based on a convenience sample of 13 888 OSTRC- H responses from elite
Norwegian athletes.
*Identified using an additional question that asked respondents how many days
they were unable to train or compete due to that health problem in the past 7 days.
the extent to which an athlete has reduced their training volume,
the revised question asks about the extent to which athletes have
modified their training or competition. To align with this change,
the word ‘normal’ was removed from question 1.
Athletes may answer differently when asked about modi-
fied training or competition, compared with reduced training
volume. To assess the consequences of the change in wording,
for a period of 13 weeks, we included both questions simul-
taneously in the ongoing registry of three Dutch National
Olympic programmes (ie, water polo, equestrian sports and
baseball); these programmes, included 90 athletes familiar
with the OSTRC- H. To assess the level of agreement between
responses to both questions, we calculated Cohen’s kappa using
equal weights (table 3). The kappa coefficient was 0.55 which
suggests substantial differences. However, the main inconsisten-
cies between versions 1 and 2 occurred for the least severe health
problems (ie, those with little or no consequences on training).
These differences were consistent with our reasoning to modify
the questioning.
Changes to questionnaire logic and answer categories
As questions 2–4 are only relevant for athletes who have a health
problem and continue to participate in training and competition,
we propose a new ‘gatekeeper’ logic that can be applied to ques-
tion 1. Using this logic:
If an athlete selects the first answer option ‘full participation
without health problems’, all further questions are redun-
dant. In this case, a total severity score of 0 is assigned and
the questionnaire is complete.
If an athlete selects the fourth answer option ‘could not
participate due to a health problem’, questions 2–4 are
redundant. In this case, a total severity score of 100 is
assigned. The athlete continues directly to additional ques-
tions researchers may apply to the questionnaire classify the
reported health problem.
This logic will reduce unnecessary responder burden by
ensuring athletes only receive questions relevant to their current
health state. However, it is important to note that in the past,
when respondents were expected to complete all four key ques-
tions, their responses were not always consistent. For example,
an athlete may have reported ‘reduced participation due to a
health problem’ in question 1, then ‘cannot participate at all’ in
question 2 or 3. Consequently, for consistency and clarity, we
removed the response category ‘cannot participate at all’ from
questions 2 and 3. We recommend that for these questions, the
values to calculate the severity score are aligned with question 1
and 4 (ie, A=0, B=8, C=17, D=25) (readers are directed to Ref.
1 for a full explanation of the OSTRC severity score).
Consequences of changing the questionnaire logic and answer
categories
By applying gatekeeper logic, we eliminate the opportunity for
athletes to report ‘full participation without health problems’ in
question 1 and then (inconsistently) report the existence of a
health problem in the subsequent questions. The revised ques-
tionnaire is, therefore, likely to reduce the number of health
problems identified.
To estimate the extent to which this occurs, we calculated the
number of health problems identified when gatekeeper logic
was and was not applied, using a convenience sample of 13 888
OSTRC- H responses from elite Norwegian athletes. As shown
in table 4, approximately 13% of the total number of cases were
missed when gatekeeper logic was used. However, the missing
cases were almost all of minor severity, given that 98.5% of
substantial problems were still captured using gatekeeper logic.
Additional questions
The OSTRC questionnaire is a tool to capture and monitor
health problems longitudinally in athletic populations.
Following the four key questions, additional questions must be
used to classify health problems and provide additional infor-
mation to researchers or clinicians. We did not attempt to make
recommendations on these follow- up questions, for a number of
reasons. First, the questions used to classify health problems (eg,
injured body part, injury type) should follow consensus- based
recommendations.7 Second, the level of detail that is necessary
and/or feasible to collect will vary between clinical and research
settings. For example:
Collecting free- text (qualitative) information about a health
problem, or knowing exactly who is aware of it, may be
unnecessary in research studies where investigators do not
need to provide clinical responses based on athlete responses.
However, this information can be valuable when clinicians
use the questionnaire in a practical athlete- monitoring
context.
For some research questions, such as those investigating rela-
tionships between load and injury or those related to subse-
quent injuries, knowing the exact date of injury or symptom
onset may be extremely important.
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
394 ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
It may be relevant to record whether the athlete has not been
able to participate due to other reasons than health prob-
lems, such as holidays, work or school commitments.
Users cannot calculate the exact number of time- loss days
from the four key questions alone. A follow- up question is
needed to collect this information accurately.
Users should, therefore, customise additional questions of the
OSTRC questionnaires to suit their research and/or clinical needs
and should categorise data according to international classifica-
tion standards, such as the IOC consensus statement on methods
for recording and reporting epidemiological data on injury and
illness in sports.7 Conversely, we recommend that users retain
the exact wording and scoring of the four key questions to facil-
itate data interpretation, comparison and pooling.
DISCUSSION
In addition to reviewing the content and structure of the OSTRC
questionnaires, the expert group discussed a range of general
issues related to the questionnaire use, outcome measures, anal-
ysis methods and the need for consistent scientific reporting.
Our aim was not to reach consensus on all topics, but to high-
light areas that users may want clarified, share lessons learnt and
to identify areas needing further research.
Are two questionnaires necessary?
As the OSTRC- H is designed to record all types of health prob-
lems, it may appear to negate the need for the OSTRC- O, which
is limited to recording overuse injuries in predefined anatom-
ical areas. However, previous research has shown that question-
naires asking athletes about specific injury types capture a greater
number of problems in that location than when generalised
questions are used.8 Therefore, the OSTRC- O may be preferable
in studies that focus on overuse injuries to one specific injury
location, particularly when collecting data for risk factor studies
and randomised controlled trials.9–11 In these cases, competing
risks should be considered in the statistical analyses to reduce
the risk of bias.12
Distribution frequency
As the questionnaire refers to the previous 7 days, weekly distri-
bution of the questionnaire is necessary to capture every health
problem. However, for certain research questions, it may be
acceptable to distribute the questionnaire less frequently, such
as every second week9 10 13 or every month.14 If investigators or
clinicians choose this approach, some short- duration cases may
not be recorded, but outcome measures will still be comparable
to data collected weekly.1 5 We highlight, however, that to limit
recall bias,15 even if the questionnaire is distributed infrequently
(eg, only once a month), the questions should still refer to ‘the
past 7 days’.
In elite sports, it is becoming increasingly common to collect
training- related data from athletes every day. In this case, daily
monitoring of health status using a modified version of the
OSTRC- H is also feasible. This may be clinically valuable if
athletes have sufficiently intensive medical coverage and may
allow for greater accuracy in the collected data. However, data
collected daily may not be directly comparable to those collected
weekly. This approach will also increase the demand on the
athletes, and response rates and accuracy may decline over time.
Outcome measures and analytical approaches
Traditional epidemiological constructs, such as injury and illness
incidence, prevalence and severity can be obtained using the
OSTRC questionnaires with some basic additional questions on
exposure and time loss. In addition, because the OSTRC ques-
tionnaires provide details on the consequences and symptoms
of health problems, a range of other outcome measures can also
be presented. The severity score and substantial health problems
are two novel outcomes proposed with the original OSTRC
questionnaires. These measures may be valuable for clinical use;
however, as they are yet to be fully validated, researchers must
consider their limitations.
The severity score falls between 0 (full participation without
health problem) and 100 (no participation at all) and is calcu-
lated based on the athlete’s responses on the four OSTRC
questions. This score allows the visualisation of changes in the
consequences of health problems over time for an athlete, which
can be valuable for coaches, athletes and clinicians. However,
using the severity score appropriately in analyses can be prob-
lematic. Although the severity score has previously been anal-
ysed as a continuous outcome variable, we emphasise that it
does not satisfy the basic requirements of a continuous measure
(eg, equal interval between possible scores). In effect, therefore,
the severity score represents an ordinal- scale variable with 25
possible outcomes, not 100. Recent publications highlight the
analytical benefits of representing various ‘states’ of an athlete’s
health on an ordinal scale.16 Unfortunately, for this approach to
be feasible with small samples (as is normally the case in sports
medicine research), the number of potential states needs to be
far fewer than 25 to reduce the risk of sparse data bias.17 Using
the time- varying nature of the OSTRC questionnaires outcomes
in advanced multistate models is an area requiring further devel-
opment and validation.
Of particular note is the longitudinal nature of the data regis-
tered with the OSTRC questionnaires. Longitudinal approaches
provide opportunities to explore the risks and prognoses of
health problems over time and account for correlated data. Such
analyses are of special interest for elite athletic populations that,
in general, are smaller in number but tend to experience multiple
events (injuries and/or illnesses). When considering longitudinal
analytical methods, users should be aware of the inherent chal-
lenges of these methods, including (i) missing data, (ii) time-
varying exposures, outcomes, confounders, effect- measure
modifiers and mediators, (iii) recurrent/subsequent events and
(iv) competing risks.16 18 19
Factors that may promote athletes to adopt the OSTRC
questionnaires
As shown in our citation analysis, multiple authors have
employed the OSTRC questionnaires since the first publica-
tion in 2013.1 This suggests that the questionnaires represent
versatile and functional tools for both research and clinical use.
In many cases, studies have reported high response rates from
athletes. However, the questionnaires have not always been
successfully adopted by athletes.20 21 In our experience and based
on recent research,21 factors that are crucial to obtaining high
response rates in the clinical setting include providing feedback
to respondents, timely follow- up by clinicians when a health
problem is reported and personal interaction with athletes to
motivate them. Similar factors influence the implementation of
sports injury surveillance practices outside clinical settings.22
We recognised that to encourage adoption of the ques-
tionnaire, its name should be relevant and recognisable to
respondents. Although researchers should report the official
questionnaire titles and abbreviations (OSTRC- O2 and OSTRC-
H2) in scientific communications, it is not necessary to use the
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
395
ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
What is already known on this topic
The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center questionnaires were
developed to address challenges in recording the full extent
of sports- related health problems using standard sports injury
data collection methods.
The questionnaires have been widely adopted in sports injury
research and in clinical health monitoring programmes by a
range of elite sports organisations.
Due to this successful uptake, a range of questionnaire-
related issues requiring clarification or modification have
been identified.
What this study adds
This manuscript proposes specific changes to the wording,
structure and logic of the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center
(OSTRC) questionnaires and discusses the likely impact of the
proposed changes on collected data.
Updated versions of the questionnaires (OSTRC- O2 and
OSTRC- H2) are provided.
A range of general issues related to questionnaire use,
outcome measures, analysis methods and implementation
success are discussed, alongside areas needing further
research.
official titles when delivering the questionnaire to respondents.
Instead, we encourage users to rename the questionnaires to suit
their purpose and context (eg, The Norwegian Olympic Team
Health Report).
Importantly, this paper presents updates to the OSTRC ques-
tionnaires, so they provide greater clarity and consistency in the
questions themselves. We also hope to ensure easier navigation
using the gatekeeper logic. We believe that these changes will
provide a better experience for the respondents and, in turn,
maximise their adherence.
Subjectivity and context specificity
Completion of the OSTRC questionnaires requires a high level
of subjectivity. Questions ask for the athletes’ perceptions of the
consequences that a health problem has on their participation
and performance, as well as their perceived symptoms. These
perceptions are dependent on contextual factors such as athlete
experience, level of sports, type of sport and time of season.23 24
This means that data collected from different cohorts of athletes
will not necessarily be comparable. We encourage further
research to explore the psychometric properties of the OSTRC
questionnaires across different contexts and populations.
When the questionnaires are applied to contexts beyond adult
sports (eg, among children, athletes with disability, performing
artists and in occupational settings), the wording should be
adjusted. We recommend an expert- based approach to ensure
sound principles behind such adjustments, as we employed in
this update. Any future adaptations of the questionnaire should
undergo psychometric testing and validation.
CONCLUSION
Users from a range of sports research and clinical environments
have gained experience using the OSTRC questionnaires and
have identified areas in which they could be improved. In this
paper, to provide greater clarity and consistency of questioning,
we present changes to the wording, structure and logic of the
original OSTRC questionnaires. We believe that these changes
will improve athletes’ experience when completing the question-
naires and also improve the quality of collected data.
Author affiliations
1Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo Sports
Trauma Research Center, Oslo, Norway
2LASEM Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
3Athlete Availability Program, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, Australian
Capital Territory, Australia
4Exercise Medicine Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith
Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
5Family Practice & Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada
6Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California, USA
7University of Western States, Portland, Oregon, USA
8School of Sport and Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK
9Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern
Denmark, Odense, Syddanmark, Denmark
10Sports Medicine Division, United States Olympic Committee, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, USA
11Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
12Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre (SIPRC), Faculty of Kinesiology, University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
13Tampere Research Center of Sport Medicine, UKK Instituutti, Tampere, Finland
14Sports, Exercise, Medicine and Lifestyle Research Institute (SEMLI), University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
15Medical and Scientific Department, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne,
Switzerland
16Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical
Centres, Amsterdam, Noord- Holland, The Netherlands
Twitter Benjamin Clarsen @benclarsen, Stig Haugsboe Andersson @
stighandersson, Sean Iain Docking @SIDocking, Michael Drew @_mickdrew,
Caroline F Finch @CarolineFinch, Lauren Victoria Fortington @LFortington,
Joar Harøy @JHaroey, Isabel S Moore @IzzyMoorePhD, Merete Møller @
Merete_Moller, Dustin Nabhan @nabhansportsmed, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen
@RUNSAFE_Rasmus, Torbjørn Soligard @TSoligard and Evert Verhagen @
Evertverhagen
Acknowledgements The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center has been
established at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences through generous grants from
the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Culture, the South- Eastern Norway Regional Health
Authority, the International Olympic Committee, the Norwegian Olympic Committee
& Confederation of Sport and Norsk Tipping AS. CFF, LVF and MD are members of
the Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP) at
Edith Cowan University. ACRISP is one of the International Research Centres for the
Prevention of Injury and Protection of Athlete Health supported by the International
Olympic Committee.
Contributors All authors were involved in the questionnaire review process,
provided editorial input to the text and approved the final manuscript. BC and EV
drafted the manuscript and performed the analyses. SHA performed the citation
search.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any
funding agency in the public, commercial or not- for- profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon request.
ORCID iDs
BenjaminClarsen http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0003- 3713- 8938
Sean IainDocking http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0001- 7051- 7548
Caroline FFinch http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0003- 1711- 1930
Lauren VictoriaFortington http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0003- 2760- 9249
JoarHarøy http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 0475- 637X
Karim MKhan http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 9976- 0258
Isabel SMoore http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 4746- 3390
DustinNabhan http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 1244- 515X
Rasmus OestergaardNielsen http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0001- 5757- 1806
KatiPasanen http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 0427- 2877
TorbjørnSoligard http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0001- 8863- 4574
EvertVerhagen http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0001- 9227- 8234
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
396 ClarsenB, etal. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:390–396. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337
Consensus statement
REFERENCES
1 Clarsen B, Myklebust G, Bahr R. Development and validation of a new method for
the registration of overuse injuries in sports injury epidemiology: the Oslo sports
trauma research centre (OSTRC) overuse injury questionnaire. Br J Sports Med
2013;47:495–502.
2 Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, etal. Consensus statement on injury definitions and
data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Br J Sports Med
2006;40:193–201.
3 Bahr R. No injuries, but plenty of pain? on the methodology for recording overuse
symptoms in sports. Br J Sports Med 2009;43:966–72.
4 Hammond LE, Lilley JM, Pope GD, etal. The impact of playing in matches while
injured on injury surveillance findings in professional football. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2014;24:e195–200.
5 Clarsen B, Rønsen O, Myklebust G, etal. The Oslo sports trauma research center
questionnaire on health problems: a new approach to prospective monitoring of
illness and injury in elite athletes. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:754–60.
6 Jorgensen JE, Rathleff CR, Rathleff MS, etal. Danish translation and validation of the
Oslo sports trauma research centre questionnaires on overuse injuries and health
problems. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016;26:1391–7.
7 Bahr R, Clarsen B, Derman W. International Olympic Committee consensus statement:
methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in
sport including STROBE extension for sport Injury and illness surveillance (STROBE-
SIIS)). Br J Sports Med 2020;54:372–89.
8 Clarsen B, Krosshaug T, Bahr R. Overuse injuries in professional road cyclists. Am J
Sports Med 2010;38:2494–501.
9 Andersson SH, Bahr R, Clarsen B, etal. Risk factors for overuse shoulder injuries
in a mixed- sex cohort of 329 elite handball players: previous findings could not be
confirmed. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:1191–8.
10 Andersson SH, Bahr R, Clarsen B, etal. Preventing overuse shoulder injuries among
throwing athletes: a cluster- randomised controlled trial in 660 elite handball players.
Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1073–80.
11 Harøy J, Clarsen B, Thorborg K, etal. Groin problems in male soccer players are more
common than previously reported. Am J Sports Med 2017;45:1304–8.
12 Andersen PK, Geskus RB, de Witte T, etal. Competing risks in epidemiology:
possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:861–70.
13 Clarsen B, Bahr R, Andersson SH, etal. Reduced glenohumeral rotation, external
rotation weakness and scapular dyskinesis are risk factors for shoulder injuries
among elite male handball players: a prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med
2014;48:1327–33.
14 Pluim BM, Clarsen B, Verhagen E. Injury rates in recreational tennis players do not
differ between different playing surfaces. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:611–5.
15 Valuri G, Stevenson M, Finch C, etal. The validity of a four week self- recall of sports
injuries. Inj Prev 2005;11:135–7.
16 Nielsen RO, Bertelsen ML, Ramskov D, etal. Time- to- event analysis for sports injury
research Part 2: time- varying outcomes. Br J Sports Med 2019;53:70–8.
17 Greenland S, Mansournia MA, Altman DG. Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain
sight. BMJ 2016;352:i1981.
18 Nielsen RO, Bertelsen ML, Ramskov D, etal. Time- to- event analysis for sports injury
research Part 1: time- varying exposures. Br J Sports Med 2019;53:61–8.
19 Ullah S, Gabbett TJ, Finch CF. Statistical modelling for recurrent events: an application
to sports injuries. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1287–93.
20 Bromley S, Drew M, Talpey S, etal. Collecting health and exposure data in Australian
Olympic combat sports: feasibility study utilizing an electronic system. JMIR Hum
Factors 2018;5:e27.
21 Barboza SD, Bolling CS, Nauta J, etal. Acceptability and perceptions of end- users
towards an online sports- health surveillance system. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med
2017;3:e000275.
22 Ekegren CL, Donaldson A, Gabbe BJ, etal. Implementing injury surveillance systems
alongside injury prevention programs: evaluation of an online surveillance system in a
community setting. Inj Epidemiol 2014;1:19.
23 Bolling C, Delfino Barboza S, van Mechelen W, etal. How elite athletes, coaches, and
physiotherapists perceive a sports injury. Transl Sports Med 2019;2:17–23.
24 Bolling C, van Mechelen W, Pasman HR, etal. Context matters: revisiting the first step
of the ’sequence of prevention’ of sports injuries. Sports Med 2018;48:2227–34.
Protected by copyright. on March 26, 2020 at University of Cape Town Libraries.http://bjsm.bmj.com/Br J Sports Med: first published as 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101337 on 14 February 2020. Downloaded from
... The average value from the three trials was used for data analysis. 26 SELF-REPORTED MEASURES Self-reported data were collected and managed using RED-Cap electronic data capture tools hosted at University of Iceland, with the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire (OSTRC-O2) 27 emailed to all participants once a week throughout the regular season or for 31 weeks. An automatic reminder was sent to non-responders after two and four days. ...
... The OSTRC-O2 questionnaire has been widely used in handball related research and is specially designed to document the extent of overuse injuries in sports. 3,4,6,9,27 The participants were asked about shoulder problems in their dominant shoulder with shoulder problems referring to any pain, ache, stiffness, clicking/ catching, swelling, instability/giving way, locking, or other complaints related to the dominant shoulder. The questionnaire included four questions about whether shoulder problems had affected participation, training/competition, or performance, and whether participants had experienced any pain in the dominant shoulder related to handball for the prior seven days. ...
... The group and individual prevalence of substantial problems was calculated in the same way, respectively, for shoulder problems that had caused moderate or severe reduction (score 17 or 25 on questions no. 2 and/ or 3 on the OSTRC-O2) in training/competition or performance or total inability to participate (score 25 on question number 1 on the OSTRC-O2). 27 Additionally, the authors added a question to the weekly questionnaire that asked the participants to rate the weekly PSL on a modified Borg rate of perceived exertion scale, by answering the question "On the scale 0-10, how hard was the recent week on your throwing shoulder?" as recommended by Schwank et al. 20 OUTCOME MEASURES, DATA AND POWER ANALYSIS The outcome measures were: 1) The association between the pre-season strength and power measurements and OS-TRC-02 results (individual prevalence, individual substantial prevalence, and severity score); 2) The influence of pre-season strength and power measurements on the association between PSL and the OSTRC-O2 severity score. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Little is known about the influence of kinetic chain strength and power on shoulder problems in handball players or the impact of participation-related shoulder load (PSL) during a season. Suboptimal activity of the kinetic chain during throwing might make the shoulder more vulnerable. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess 1) the association between pre-season measurements and shoulder problems among handball players and 2) whether pre-season strength and power influence the association between PSL and severity of shoulder problems. Study Design Prospective observational cohort study. Methods Pre-season measurements were done using the Isometric mid-thigh pull for lower body strength, a seated test for trunk rotation power (TRP) and isometric testing of external (ER) and internal rotation shoulder strength on 42 male players. Shoulder problems (prevalence, substantial prevalence, and severity score) were documented weekly through a season (31 weeks) with The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Questionnaire (OSTRC-O2) and PSL with the modified Borg rate of perceived exertion scale. Spearman´s correlation coefficient was applied to examine the association within the first aim, while a mixed model ANOVA was conducted to analyze the second aim. Results A weak and negative correlation (rs=-0.34) was found between pre-season ER strength and the individual prevalence of shoulder problems (p=0.029). A main effect was found between PSL and the OSTRC-O2 severity score (p=<0.001) with higher severity scores observed with increased PSL. A significant interaction was found between PSL and pre-season TRP regarding their influence on the OSTRC-02 severity score (p=0.017). With higher PSL, a higher severity score was observed among players with pre-season TRP more than one standard deviation below the group’s mean. Conclusions The results indicate that low TRP may make the throwing shoulder more vulnerable to an increase in load. Looking beyond shoulder strength and load may therefore be important. Level of evidence 3
... The OSTRC-H2 questionnaire includes 4 key questions, which are used to calculate a severity score. 8 It also includes questions to capture the injury mechanism and activity and identify whether the health problem is an exacerbation, recurrence, or a subsequent issue. Additionally, the OSTRC-H and OSTRC-H2 moved from the traditional ''time-loss'' definition, which considers only the health problems causing an athlete's absence from training or competition, to a broader health problem definition. ...
... Although these measures might be valuable, they are not yet fully validated. 8 Due to its practical value for sport and medical professionals, the OSTRC-O has been translated and validated for Norwegian athletes 9 ; German Paralympians 21 ; Spanish youth 3 and adult athletes 29 ; and Danish, 23 Swedish, 16 Brazilian, 33 Japanese, 30 and Thai-speaking athletes 26 to date. However, the OSTRC-H2 has been translated and validated only in Japanese, 31 Spanish, 3 and French. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The updated Oslo Sports Trauma Research Questionnaire on Health Problems (OSTRC-H2) has been translated into a limited set of languages and lacks full validation of its new measures. Purpose To (1) translate, cross-culturally adapt, and evaluate the measurement properties of the OSTRC-H2 for the Slovenian population and (2) investigate the construct validity for the severity score and time lost due to a health problem. Study Design Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods The OSTRC-H2 was translated from English to Slovenian (OSTRC-H2-SLO) according to international guidelines. A 15-week study was conducted among 188 elite athletes, with a test-retest performed in the 10th week. Internal consistency, reliability, content validity, feasibility, and potential ceiling effects were investigated. Internal consistency was measured using the Cronbach alpha coefficient, while reliability was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was measured with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ( r S ). Results There was a 95% response rate and an 18% mean weekly prevalence of health problems. The OSTRC-H2-SLO showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.67-0.99]), with a Cronbach α of .93. A strong positive correlation was found between the OSTRC-H2-SLO severity score and days lost due to an acute injury ( r S = 0.754), overuse injury ( r S = 0.785), and illness ( r S = 0.894) ( P < .001 for all). Moderate to strong negative correlations were observed between severity score and total load (training and competition load in hours) as well as between days lost and total load ( P < .001 for all). Conclusion The OSTRC-H2-SLO was found to be valid, reliable, and well accepted among Slovenian athletes. The authors confirmed the questionnaire's construct validity and identified total load as an indicator of an increase in the severity score. Registration NCT05471297 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
... To quantify the severity of health problems, the IOC statement 13 14 suggests (1) the use of time loss (defined as the 'number of days that the athlete is not fully available for training and competition, from the self-reported date of onset until the athlete is fully available for training or competition') or (2) the athlete's self-reported consequences, such as the cumulative severity score that can be calculated based on the OSTRC-H2 questionnaire. 73 The latter option (2) is preferable when injuries and illnesses are surveyed based on athlete-reported data. 13 14 73 Both approaches and all other severity measures mentioned in the IOC statement (ie, clinical outcomes, functional measures, performance measures and patient-reported outcome measures) are also appropriate for injury/illness severity descriptions in snow sports. ...
... When using the OSTRC-H2 questionnaire, we recommend reporting its standard outcome measures, such as the average weekly prevalence. 73 Additionally, we encourage reporting injury/illness rates separately for the international competition season period (from approximately November to April) and preseason period (from approximately May to October). The exact dates vary slightly between different snow sports disciplines and levels. ...
Article
Full-text available
The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) consensus statement on ‘methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport’ recommended standardising methods to advance data collection and reporting consistency. However, additional aspects need to be considered when these methods are applied to specific sports settings. Therefore, we have developed a snow sports-specific extension of the IOC statement to promote the harmonisation of injury and illness registration methods among athletes of all levels and categories in the different disciplines governed by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), which is also applicable to other related snow sports such as biathlon, ski mountaineering, and to some extent, para snow sports. The panel was selected with the aim of representing as many different areas of expertise/backgrounds, perspectives and diversity as possible, and all members were assigned to thematic subgroups based on their profiles. After panel formation, all members were provided with an initial draft of this extension, which was used as a basis for discussion of aspects specific to the discipline, application context, level and sex within their snow sports subgroup topic. The outcomes were then aligned with the IOC’s existing consensus recommendations and incorporated into a preliminary manuscript draft. The final version of this snow sports-specific extension was developed and approved in two iterative rounds of manuscript revisions by all consensus panel members and a final meeting to clarify open discussion points. This snow sports-specific extension of the IOC statement is intended to guide researchers, international and national sports governing bodies, and other entities recording and reporting epidemiological data in snow sports to help standardise data from different sources for comparison and future research.
... The questionnaire was converted into two separate measurement tools evaluating overuse injuries and general health, and adjustments had to be made in the answer options to the questions over time. The score of the questionnaire, whose Turkish validity and reliability was conducted by Özal, Kafa, and Güzel following a thesis study in 2023, ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating more severe health problems (14). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aim: The Mediterranean diet’s high carbohydrate content and antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties make it appealing to athletes. Tendinopathy etiology is influenced by nutrition. Athletes with high adherence to the Mediterranean diet may have a lower severity of tendinopathy. This study aimed to investigate the effect of adherence to the Mediterranean diet on tendinopathy severity. Material and Methods: Exercise habits, physical activity level, body region, stage of the injury, age, body mass index, gender, smoking status, and presence of chronic diseases of individuals older than 18 years of age and who were diagnosed with tendinopathy in the sports medicine clinic were recorded in this cross-sectional study. The Revised Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Overuse Injury and Health Problems Questionnaires and the Mediterranean diet adherence screener were applied to participants. Results: A total of 152 participants, 52% (n=79) of whom were female, with lateral epicondylopathy (n=71), Achilles tendinopathy (n=25), plantar fasciitis (n=23), patellar tendinopathy (n=13), and other tendinopathies were included in the study. Upon examination of the relationship between the level of adherence to the Mediterranean diet and the severity of complaints due to overuse, no significant differences were found between groups (p=0.935, and p=0.927, respectively). A weak negative correlation was found between weekly exercise duration and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (rs=-0.237; p=0.016). Conclusion: No evidence was found that adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with differences in the severity of tendinopathy complaints. Athletes with high weekly exercise durations do not adopt the Mediterranean diet as an optimal dietary approach.
... Therefore, the standard injury surveillance method [12] based on time-loss from training might not be best suited for registering overuse injuries. Clarsen et al. compared the standard injury surveillance method to the weekly OSTRC Overuse Injury Questionnaire and found that the standard method registered ten times fewer injuries than the weekly OSTRC Overuse Injury Questionnaire [6,8]. In our study, (Table 1) only 10 cases of minimal to mild injuries to the lower limb and lower back areas were found using the traditional time-loss injury severity scores. ...
Article
Background: Adolescent team sport athletes with high training volume and overscheduling have increased incidences of injuries (Osgood-Schlatter disease, low-back pain etc.) compared to their less active counterparts. These overuse injuries may begin to negatively affect young athletes’ attitudes towards physical activity. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of low back, knee and ankle problems in young male basketball players. Methods: The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Overuse Injury Questionnaire (OSTRC) was distributed weekly to 16 adolescent athletes who regularly participated in basketball training and who volunteered to participate in the study (age 15 ± 1.2 years; body weight 72.1 ± 11.8 kg; height 183.5 ± 8.2 cm; BMI 21.1 ± 2.5; training experience 7.4 ± 1.2 years; training hours per week 6.6 ± 3.8) for 12 weeks at the start of their season. Results: The response rate to the weekly OSTRC questionnaire was 96.4%. A total of 94 overuse conditions were identified, affecting 15 athletes (94% of the cohort). 93.8% of the athletes in this group reported having had knee problems, while low back and ankle problems were reported by 43.8% and 31.3% respectively. Conclusions: Knee and low back problems seem to be very common in adolescent basketball players and should be the focus of regular injury prevention programmes. Problems in these areas were more prevalent at the start of the study indicating the need for better pre-season physical preparation. Also, the weekly questionnaire helps to better regulate training loads and, therefore, is a good monitoring system for coaches and physiotherapists to prevent overuse problems.
Article
Full-text available
Women’s participation in sports has been increasing and has led to increased concerns about the risk of sports injuries. However, epidemiological studies on the incidence of sports injuries in women’s basketball, particularly in Saudi Arabia, are lacking. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of sports-related injuries and illnesses during the first-ever women’s national basketball league (2022) in Saudi Arabia by implementing an International Olympic Committee injury and illness surveillance protocol. The medical staff of the participating teams (n=15) were requested to report all new injuries and illnesses during matches and training daily throughout the competition. Exposure (number of player-hours) during matches was calculated for all the players (n=213). In total, 15.9% of the players were injured. The most frequent injuries were to the lower leg (Calf/Achilles tendon) followed by the ankles and knees. The most common injuries were sprains and muscle spasms. In total, 2.8% of the players (n=6) became ill during the competition. Five of the six cases (83.3%) had respiratory tract infections. Our findings show the importance of monitoring all injuries to prevent at-risk players from injuring themselves further. Whereas lower extremity injuries were the most common in the first-ever women’s national basketball league in Saudi Arabia.
Article
Full-text available
Women’s participation in sports has been increasing and has led to increased concerns about the risk of sports injuries. However, epidemiological studies on the incidence of sports injuries in women’s basketball, particularly in Saudi Arabia, are lacking. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of sports-related injuries and illnesses during the first-ever women’s national basketball league (2022) in Saudi Arabia by implementing an International Olympic Committee injury and illness surveillance protocol. The medical staff of the participating teams (n=15) were requested to report all new injuries and illnesses during matches and training daily throughout the competition. Exposure (number of player-hours) during matches was calculated for all the players (n=213). In total, 15.9% of the players were injured. The most frequent injuries were to the lower leg (Calf/Achilles tendon) followed by the ankles and knees. The most common injuries were sprains and muscle spasms. In total, 2.8% of the players (n=6) became ill during the competition. Five of the six cases (83.3%) had respiratory tract infections. Our findings show the importance of monitoring all injuries to prevent at-risk players from injuring themselves further. Whereas lower extremity injuries were the most common in the first-ever women’s national basketball league in Saudi Arabia.
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between body fat mass, Body Surface Area (BSA), and incidence of sports injuries among physical education students at higher education institutions in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, with the University of Zakho as the primary research site. This investigation addressed the increasing prevalence of sports-related injuries in university physical education programs within the distinct sociocultural and academic milieu of Kurdistan. Employing a descriptive analytical methodology, anthropometric data, sports injury information, and personal details were collected from third- and fourth-year students at the University of Zakho. The study utilized validated questionnaires, standardized physical assessments, and robust statistical analyses, including correlation and regression models. The findings revealed statistically significant associations between body composition parameters and injury rates, with notable variations across diverse sports disciplines and academic progressions. These results reflect specific athletic practices and educational paradigms prevalent in higher education institutions in the Kurdistan Region. The study concluded that body fat mass, BSA, and sport-specific variables are significant predictors of injury risk among physical education students in these institutions. These findings underscore the necessity for evidence-based and culturally appropriate injury prevention strategies tailored to the unique characteristics of sports programs in universities across the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Implementation of such strategies could potentially enhance student health outcomes and optimize performance in physical education curricula within the higher education system of the region.
Preprint
Full-text available
Background The aim of the study is cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Questionnaire on Health Problems for Polish-speaking athletes (OSTRC-H2 PL ). Additionally, the study is aimed at developing and validating the original HPSC PL questionnaire, designed as a supplement to the OSTRC-H2 PL , for classifying symptoms of health problems experienced by athletes, based on the consensus of the International Olympic Committee. Methods The cross-cultural adaptation of the OSTRC-H2 questionnaire was conducted using the forward-backward method. The HPSC PL questionnaire was developed by researchers who are experts in sports physiotherapy, sports medicine and sports psychology through a series of meetings and email correspondence. The reliability of the developed tools was assessed by comparing data obtained from 102 athletes who applied them at intervals of 24 to 48 hours. Content validity was evaluated through focus group interviews, while convergent validity was assessed by comparing data obtained from the developed tools to data collected using the SF-36 questionnaire. Results The OSTRC-H2 PL demonstrated high reliability (ICC: 0.92; SEM: 6 pt; SDC: 16 pt) as well as internal consistency (Cronbach's α: 0.92), and established content and convergent validity. The questions included in the HPSC PL questionnaire also showed satisfactory reliability, as indicated by positive, negative and overall agreement rates (≥ 71.6%), Cohen's kappa coefficient (≥ 0.62), and content validity was also confirmed. Conclusion In this study, two questionnaires (OSTRC-H2 PL and HPSC PL ) are provided with verified validity and reliability, which enable continuous monitoring of the health of Polish athletes and classifying symptoms of the health problems they experience.
Article
Full-text available
Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport-specific or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illness) epidemiology to date. Our objective was to further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems; severity of health problems; capturing and reporting athlete exposure; expressing risk; burden of health problems; study population characteristics and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE Extension—the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programmes and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. Implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.
Article
Full-text available
Background Time-to-event modelling is underutilised in sports injury research. Still, sports injury researchers have been encouraged to consider time-to-event analyses as a powerful alternative to other statistical methods. Therefore, it is important to shed light on statistical approaches suitable for analysing training load related key-questions within the sports injury domain. Content In the present article, we illuminate: (i) the possibilities of including time-varying outcomes in time-to-event analyses, (ii) how to deal with a situation where different types of sports injuries are included in the analyses (ie, competing risks), and (iii) how to deal with the situation where multiple subsequent injuries occur in the same athlete. Conclusion Time-to-event analyses can handle time-varying outcomes, competing risk and multiple subsequent injuries. Although powerful, time-to-event has important requirements: researchers are encouraged to carefully consider prior to any data collection that five injuries per exposure state or transition is needed to avoid conducting statistical analyses on time-to-event data leading to biased results. This requirement becomes particularly difficult to accommodate when a stratified analysis is required as the number of variables increases exponentially for each additional strata included. In future sports injury research, we need stratified analyses if the target of our research is to respond to the question: ‘ how much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among athletes with different characteristics ?’ Responding to this question using multiple time-varying exposures (and outcomes) requires millions of injuries. This should not be a barrier for future research, but collaborations across borders to collecting the amount of data needed seems to be an important step forward.
Article
Full-text available
Background ‘How much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among different athletes?’ is a key question in sports medicine and sports science. To address this question the investigator/practitioner must analyse exposure variables that change over time, such as change in training load. Very few studies have included time-varying exposures (eg, training load) and time-varying effect-measure modifiers (eg, previous injury, biomechanics, sleep/stress) when studying sports injury aetiology. Aim To discuss advanced statistical methods suitable for the complex analysis of time-varying exposures such as changes in training load and injury-related outcomes. Content Time-varying exposures and time-varying effect-measure modifiers can be used in time-to-event models to investigate sport injury aetiology. We address four key-questions (i) Does time-to-event modelling allow change in training load to be included as a time-varying exposure for sport injury development? (ii) Why is time-to-event analysis superior to other analytical concepts when analysing training-load related data that changes status over time? (iii) How can researchers include change in training load in a time-to-event analysis? and, (iv) Are researchers able to include other time-varying variables into time-to-event analyses? We emphasise that cleaning datasets, setting up the data, performing analyses with time-varying variables and interpreting the results is time-consuming, and requires dedication. It may need you to ask for assistance from methodological peers as the analytical approaches presented this paper require specialist knowledge and well-honed statistical skills. Conclusion To increase knowledge about the association between changes in training load and injury, we encourage sports injury researchers to collaborate with statisticians and/or methodological epidemiologists to carefully consider applying time-to-event models to prospective sports injury data. This will ensure appropriate interpretation of time-to-event data.
Article
Full-text available
It is possible to prevent sports injuries. Unfortunately, the demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness of injury prevention approaches are not translated into lasting real-world effects. Contemporary views in sports medicine and injury prevention suggest that sports injuries are ‘complex’ phenomena. If the problem we aim to prevent is complex, then the first step in the ‘sequence of prevention’ that defines the ‘injury problem’ already needs to have considered this. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the first step of the ‘sequence of prevention’, and to explore new perspectives that acknowledge the complexity of the sports injury problem. First, this paper provides a retrospective of the ‘sequence of prevention’, acknowledging contemporary views on sports injuries and their prevention. Thereafter, from the perspective of the socioecological model, we demonstrate the need for taking into account the complex nature of sports injuries in the first step. Finally, we propose an alternative approach to explore and understand injury context through qualitative research methods. A better understanding of the injury problem in context will guide more context-sensitive studies, thus providing a new perspective for sports injury prevention research.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Electronic methods are increasingly being used to manage health-related data among sporting populations. Collection of such data permits the analysis of injury and illness trends, improves early detection of injuries and illnesses, collectively referred to as health problems, and provides evidence to inform prevention strategies. The Athlete Management System (AMS) has been employed across a range of sports to monitor health. Australian combat athletes train across the country without dedicated national medical or sports science teams to monitor and advocate for their health. Employing a Web-based system, such as the AMS, may provide an avenue to increase the visibility of health problems experienced by combat athletes and deliver key information to stakeholders detailing where prevention programs may be targeted. Objective: The objectives of this paper are to (1) report on the feasibility of utilizing the AMS to collect longitudinal injury and illness data of combat sports athletes and (2) describe the type, location, severity, and recurrence of injuries and illnesses that the cohort of athletes experience across a 12-week period. Methods: We invited 26 elite and developing athletes from 4 Olympic combat sports (boxing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling) to participate in this study. Engagement with the AMS was measured, and collected health problems (injuries or illnesses) were coded using the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (version 10.1) and International Classification of Primary Care (version 2). Results: Despite >160 contacts, athlete engagement with online tools was poor, with only 13% compliance across the 12-week period. No taekwondo or wrestling athletes were compliant. Despite low overall engagement, a large number of injuries or illness were recorded across 11 athletes who entered data-22 unique injuries, 8 unique illnesses, 30 recurrent injuries, and 2 recurrent illnesses. The most frequent injuries were to the knee in boxing (n=41) and thigh in judo (n=9). In this cohort, judo players experienced more severe, but less frequent, injuries than boxers, yet judo players sustained more illnesses than boxers. In 97.0% (126/130) of cases, athletes in this cohort continued to train irrespective of their health problems. Conclusions: Among athletes who reported injuries, many reported multiple conditions, indicating a need for health monitoring in Australian combat sports. A number of factors may have influenced engagement with the AMS, including access to the internet, the design of the system, coach views on the system, previous experiences with the system, and the existing culture within Australian combat sports. To increase engagement, there may be a requirement for sports staff to provide relevant feedback on data entered into the system. Until the barriers are addressed, it is not feasible to implement the system in its current form across a larger cohort of combat athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Aim To describe the acceptability and the perceptions of athletes and staff members (ie, end-users) towards an online sports-health surveillance system. Methods A pilot study with a mixed-methods approach was pursued. Descriptive analysis was conducted to present the adherence of judo (n=34), swimming (n=21) and volleyball (n=14) athletes to an online registration of their sport exposure and any health complaints between April 2014 and January 2015. End-users’ perceptions towards the system were investigated qualitatively with semistructured interviews (n=21). Qualitative analysis was based on the constant comparative method using principles of the grounded theory. Results The response rates of judo, swimming and volleyball athletes were 50% (SD 23), 61% (SD 27) and 56% (SD 25), respectively. Most athletes found it simple to register their sport exposure and health complaints online; however, personal communication was still preferred for this purpose. The system facilitated the communication between medical and trainer staff, who were able to identify in the system reports health complaints from athletes that were not necessarily communicated face-to-face. Therefore, staff members reported that they were able to intervene earlier to prevent minor health complaints from becoming severe health problems. However, staff members expected higher adherence of athletes to the online follow-ups, and athletes expected to receive feedback on their inputs to the system. Conclusion An online system can be used in sporting settings complementary to regular strategies for monitoring athletes’ health. However, providing feedback on athletes’ inputs is important to maintain their adherence to such an online system.
Article
Background Shoulder injuries are common among handball players and predominantly characterised by overuse characteristics. Reduced total glenohumeral rotation, external rotation weakness and scapular dyskinesis have been identified as risk factors among elite male handball players. Aim To assess whether previously identified risk factors are associated with overuse shoulder injuries in a large cohort of elite male and female handball players. Methods 329 players (168 male, 161 female) from the two upper divisions in Norway were included and tested prior to the 2014–2015 season. Measures included glenohumeral internal and external rotation range of motion, isometric internal and external rotation strength, and assessment of scapular dyskinesis. Players were followed prospectively for one competitive season, with prevalence and severity of shoulder problems registered monthly using the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire. A severity score based on players’ questionnaire responses was used as the outcome measure in multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between candidate risk factors and overuse shoulder injury. Results No significant associations were found between total rotation (OR 1.05 per 5° change, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), external rotation strength (OR 1.05 per 10 N change, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20) or obvious scapular dyskinesis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.99) and overuse shoulder injury. A significant positive association was found between greater internal rotation (OR 1.16 per 5° change, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.34) and overuse shoulder injury. Conclusion None of the previously identified risk factors were associated with overuse shoulder injuries in a mixed-sex cohort of elite handball players.
Article
Background: The majority of surveillance studies in soccer have used a time-loss injury definition, and many groin problems result from overuse, leading to gradually increasing pain and/or reduced performance without necessarily causing an absence from soccer training or match play. Thus, the magnitude of groin problems in soccer has probably been underestimated in previous studies based on traditional injury surveillance methods. Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of groin problems among soccer players of both sexes and among male soccer players at different levels of play through a new surveillance method developed to capture acute and overuse problems. Study design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: We registered groin problems during a 6-week period of match congestion using the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire. A total of 240 players from 15 teams across different levels of play and from both sexes were included, and they responded to the weekly questionnaire. We calculated the average weekly prevalence of all groin problems and substantial groin problems. Results: Of the 240 players, 112 male players (59%) and 20 female players (45%) reported at least 1 episode of groin problems. The average weekly prevalence of any groin problem and substantial groin problem for all male players was 29% (range, 23%-32% across different levels) and 10% (7%-13%), respectively. Elite male players had an increased risk of experiencing groin problems (odds ratio: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5-6.4, P = .03) compared with elite female players. There was no difference in the risk of experiencing groin problems among elite, subelite, and amateur male players. For substantial problems, there was no difference between elite male and elite female players or among levels of play for senior male soccer players. Conclusion: We found a high prevalence of groin problems among male soccer players during a period with match congestion. Time-loss definition as used in previous injury surveillance studies captured only one-third of the male groin problems registered with the new method. Elite male players had 3 times' higher risk of reporting groin problems as compared with elite female players, while playing level did not influence the risk of reporting a groin problem among males.
Article
Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in the prevalence of tennis injuries between the four most common court surfaces in the Netherlands, including hard court, clay, sand-fill artificial grass and red-sand-fill artificial grass. Natural grass was not included in this study. Methods This was a repeated cross-sectional study over 6 months, involving members of the Royal Netherlands Lawn Tennis Association (KNLTB). A monthly questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 20 000 KNLTB members, stratified by their club’s playing surface. The questionnaire included questions on court surface, tennis exposure and physical complaints, using the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre questionnaire on health problems. Results A total of 3656 (18%) of the 20 000 invited members completed at least one of the monthly questionnaires [mean age 49 years (15)]. A total of 4047 injuries were reported by 1957 respondents. Of these injuries, 3246 (80%) were overuse and 801 (20%) were acute. There were no statistically significant differences in injury prevalence between groups who played primarily on any one of the four court surfaces. However, players who played on multiple surfaces had a higher injury prevalence, particularly of overuse injuries, than those who primarily played on one court surface. Compared with the other court surfaces, there was a higher prevalence of lower limb overuse injuries when playing on hard court. Conclusion There is no significant difference in the overall prevalence of injury on clay, hard court, sand-fill artificial grass and red-sand-fill artificial grass.