Page 102 - JSOM Winter 2017

Although time consuming, and a step away from traditional 13. Donaldson A, Finch CF. Applying implementation science to
MSK-I prevention research tenets (i.e., biomechanics, fitness, sports injury prevention. Br J Sport Med. 2013;47(8):473–475.
and risk factor identification), a new approach is needed. 14. Donaldson A, Lloyd DG, Gabbe BJ, et al. We have the pro-
This approach has demonstrated successful MSK-I prevention gramme, what next? Planning the implementation of an injury
prevention programme. Inj Prev. 2017;23(4):273–280.
uptake and diffusion in civilian athletics 14,37,38 and may also 15. Bulzacchelli MT, Sulsky SI, Rodriguez-Monguio R, et al. Injury
benefit the SOF community. Jointly and collaboratively estab- during U.S. Army basic combat training: a systematic review of
lishing MSK-I prevention and HPO solutions with stakehold- risk factor studies. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(6):813–822.
ers can ensure success and sustainability across the life cycle 16. Lisman P, de la Motte SJ, Gribbin TC, et al. A systematic review
and optimize future and current SOF. SOF communities have of the association between physical fitness and musculoskeletal
much of this in place already, but stakeholder buy-in is key. injury risk: part 1 - cardiorespiratory endurance. J Strength Cond
Res. 2017;31(6):1744–1757.
17. de la Motte SJ, Gribbin TC, Lisman P, et al. A systematic review
Disclaimer of the association between physical fitness and musculoskeletal
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The opinions or as- injury risk: part 2 – muscular endurance and muscular strength. J
sertions contained herein are the private ones of the author(s) Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(11):3218–3234.
and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views 18. O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, et al. Functional movement
of the Uniformed Services University, Department of the Army, screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2011;43(12):2224–2230.
Department of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, or the 19. Lisman P, O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, et al. Functional movement
US Department of Defense. screen and aerobic fitness predict injuries in military training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(4):636–643.
Disclosure 20. Bushman TT, Grier TL, Canham-Chervak MC, et al. Pain on
The authors have nothing to disclose. functional movement screen tests and injury risk. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015;29(suppl 11):S65–70.
21. Bushman TT, Grier TL, Canham-Chervak M, et al. The func-
Author Contributions tional movement screen and injury risk: association and pre -
All authors contributed to the writing of this manuscript. S.J.de dictive value in active men. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):297–304.
la M. and T.C.G. conceived the idea for the paper. P.A.D. pro- 22. Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Tchandja J, et al. Injury-reduction effec-
vided critical input and review of all drafts of the manuscript. tiveness of prescribing running shoes on the basis of foot arch
All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. height: summary of military investigations. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther. 2014;44(10):805–812.
23. Knapik JJ, Pope R, Orr R, et al. Injuries and footwear (part 1):
References athletic shoe history and injuries in relation to foot arch height
1. Bullock SH, Jones BH, Gilchrist J, et al. Prevention of physical and training in boots. J Spec Oper Med. 2015;15(4):102–108.
training-related injuries recommendations for the military and 24. World Health Organization. Fact sheet about health benefits of
other active populations based on expedited systematic reviews. smoking cessation. 2016; http://www.who.int/tobacco/quitting
Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1 suppl):S156–181. /en_tfi_quitting_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed 19 November 2017.
2. Jones BH, Canham-Chervak M, Canada S, et al. Medical surveil- 25. Knapik JJ, Scott SJ, Sharp MA, et al. The basis for prescribed
lance of injuries in the U.S. Military: descriptive epidemiology ability group run speeds and distances in U.S. Army basic combat
and recommendations for improvement. Am J Prev Med. 2010; training. Mil Med. 2006;171(7):669–677.
38(1 suppl):S42–S60. 26. Shaffer RA. Musculoskeletal injury project. Paper presented at
3. Veterans Benefits Administration Annual Benefits Report Fiscal 43rd Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medi-
Year 2015. cine, 1996; Cincinnati, OH.
4. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. Absolute and relative 27. Teyhen DS, Shaffer SW, Butler RJ, et al. What risk factors are as-
morbidity burdens attributable to various illnesses and injuries, sociated with musculoskeletal injury in US Army Rangers? A Pro-
U.S. Armed Forces, 2014. MSMR. 2015;22(4):5–10. spective prognostic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(9):
5. Institute for Work & Health. What researchers mean by primary, 2948–2958.
secondary and tertiary prevention. At Work. 2015; 80. http://www 28. Beutler AI, de la Motte SJ. Military entrance processing screen to
.iwh.on.ca/wrmb/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-prevention. assess risk of training (MEPSTART): predicting and preventing
Accessed 19 November 2017. musculoskeletal injury in military recruit populations. US Mili-
6. Jones BH, Knapik JJ. Physical training and exercise-related in- tary Entrance Processing Command; 2011.
juries. Surveillance, research and injury prevention in military 29. de la Motte SJ, Lisman P, Sabatino M, et al. The relationship be-
populations. Sports Med. 1999;27(2):111–125. tween functional movement, balance deficits, and previous injury
7. Acute injuries and injury-related musculoskeletal conditions history in deploying marine warfighters. J Strength Cond Res.
among male and female Marines attending officer candidate 2016;30(6):1619–1625.
school and the basic school, CY2011-2015. Norfolk, VA: Navy 30. Barengo NC, Meneses-Echavez JF, Ramirez-Velez R, et al. The
and Marine Corps Public Health Center; 2016. impact of the FIFA 11+ training program on injury prevention
8. Acute injuries and injury-related musculoskeletal conditions in football players: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public
among male and female Marines, FY2011–15. Norfolk, VA: Navy Health. 2014;11(11):11986–12000.
and Marine Corps Public Health Center; 2016. 31. Donnell-Fink LA, Klara K, Collins JE, et al. Effectiveness of knee
9. Knapik JJ, Canham-Chervak M, Hauret K, et al. Discharges dur- injury and anterior cruciate ligament tear prevention programs: a
ing U.S. Army basic training: injury rates and risk factors. Mil meta-analysis. PloS One. 2015;10(12):e0144063.
Med. 2001;166(7):641–647. 32. Grimm NL, Jacobs JC Jr, Kim J, et al. Anterior cruciate liga-
10. Finch C. A new framework for research leading to sports injury ment and knee injury prevention programs for soccer players:
prevention. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(1-2):3–9; discussion 10. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43
11. McKay CD, Steffen K, Romiti M, et al. The effect of coach and (8):2049–2056.
player injury knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on adherence to 33. Sugimoto D, Myer GD, Bush HM, et al. Compliance with neu-
the FIFA 11+ programme in female youth soccer. Br J Sport Med. romuscular training and anterior cruciate ligament injury risk re-
2014;48(17):1281–1286. duction in female athletes: a meta-analysis. J Athl Train. 2012;47
12. Donaldson A, Finch CF. Planning for implementation and trans- (6):714–723.
lation: seek first to understand the end-users’ perspectives. Br J 34. Fortington LV, Donaldson A, Lathlean T, et al. When ‘just doing
Sport Med. 2012;46(5):306–307. it’ is not enough: assessing the fidelity of player performance of

100 | JSOM Volume 17, Edition 4/Winter 2017