Advertisement

Return to Play After Injuries: A Survey on the Helpfulness of Various Forms of Assistance in the Shared Decision-Making Process in Semiprofessional Athletes in Germany

Published:November 20, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.10.019

      Abstract

      Objective

      To assess how different decision-guiding factors, such as health- and performance-related stakeholders, as well as evidence-based guidelines, support the process-oriented final positive return-to-play (RTP) decision of head coaches responsible for semiprofessional sport teams.

      Design

      Cross-sectional survey.

      Setting

      Team sport.

      Participants

      A survey consisting of questions on the importance of different decision-guiding factors used when making the RTP decision after injuries was administered to and completed by head coaches (N=238) of semiprofessional players' teams.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      With respect to helpfulness in the RTP decision-making process, the coaches rated both the importance of the opinions of physicians, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, and the athletes themselves, and the importance of the general and injury-specific RTP guidelines.

      Results

      Our survey revealed that the head coaches rely on physicians and physiotherapists to a large extent, to the athletes and to themselves to a medium extent, and to strength and conditioning coaches and RTP guidelines to a small but still relevant extent. The coaches' efforts to seek a shared decision-making process in RTP are, hence, partially evident.

      Conclusions

      A multitude of actuators intervene when making the RTP decision. The professionalization of the RTP process in semiprofessional sports includes the athletes themselves, the head coaches, the (external) physicians, the (external) physiotherapists, and the strength and conditioning coaches based on general RTP decision-making models and specific criteria related to injury type, sports type, level, and playing position. The development of awareness and implementation strategies of RTP models should be subject to further research.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      ACL (anterior cruciate ligament), RTP (return to play)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ardern C.L.
        • Glasgow P.
        • Schneiders A.
        • et al.
        2016 consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern.
        Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 853-864
        • Shrier I.
        • Safai P.
        • Charland L.
        Return to play following injury: whose decision should it be?.
        Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48: 394-401
        • Shultz R.
        • Bido J.
        • Shrier I.
        • Meeuwisse W.H.
        • Garza D.
        • Matheson G.O.
        Team clinician variability in return-to-play decisions.
        Clin J Sport Med. 2013; 23: 456-461
        • Liem B.C.
        • Olafsen N.P.
        • Harrast M.A.
        • Herring S.A.
        Final comment: return-to-play decision making: does level of competition make a difference?.
        PM R. 2016; 8: S139-S143
        • Kelley K.
        • Clark B.
        • Brown V.
        • Sitzia J.
        Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2003; 15: 261-266
        • Miller L.E.
        • Smith K.L.
        Handling nonresponse issues.
        J Ext. 1983; 21: 45-50
        • Armstrong J.S.
        • Overton T.S.
        Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
        J Mark Res. 1977; 14: 396-402
        • Saunders C.L.
        • Elliott M.N.
        • Lyratzopoulos G.
        • Abel G.A.
        Do differential response rates to patient surveys between organizations lead to unfair performance comparisons?: Evidence from the English cancer patient experience survey.
        Med Care. 2016; 54: 45-54
      1. The American Association for Public Opinion Research Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 8th ed. AAPOR, Oakbrook Terrace, IL2015
      2. VBG VBG-Sportreport—2016: Analyse des Unfallgeschehens in den zwei höchsten Ligen der Männer: Basketball, Eishockey, Fußball & Handball. Jedermann-Verlag GmbH, Hamburg2016
        • Best R.
        • Bauer G.
        • Niess A.
        • Striegel H.
        [Return to play decisions in professional soccer: a decision algorithm from a team physician's viewpoint].
        Z Orthop Unfall. 2011; 149 ([German]): 582-587
        • Creighton D.W.
        • Shrier I.
        • Shultz R.
        • Meeuwisse W.H.
        • Matheson G.O.
        Return-to-play in sport: a decision-based model.
        Clin J Sport Med. 2010; 20: 379-385
        • Shrier I.
        Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) framework for return-to-play decision-making.
        Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 1311-1315
        • Kozlowski E.J.
        • Barcia A.M.
        • Tokish J.M.
        Meniscus repair: the role of accelerated rehabilitation in return to sport.
        Sports Med Arthrosc. 2012; 20: 121-126
        • Richie D.H.
        • Izadi F.E.
        Return to play after an ankle sprain: guidelines for the podiatric physician.
        Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2015; 32: 195-215
        • Czuppon S.
        • Racette B.A.
        • Klein S.E.
        • Harris-Hayes M.
        Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.
        Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48: 356-364
        • Echemendia R.J.
        • Giza C.C.
        • Kutcher J.S.
        Developing guidelines for return to play: consensus and evidence-based approaches.
        Brain Inj. 2015; 29: 185-194
        • Ahmad C.S.
        • Redler L.H.
        • Ciccotti M.G.
        • Maffulli N.
        • Longo U.G.
        • Bradley J.
        Evaluation and management of hamstring injuries.
        Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 2933-2947
        • Hallen A.
        • Ekstrand J.
        Return to play following muscle injuries in professional footballers.
        J Sports Sci. 2014; 32: 1229-1236
        • Barry M.J.
        • Edgman-Levitan S.
        Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 780-781
        • Stovitz S.D.
        • Satin D.J.
        Professionalism and the ethics of the sideline physician.
        Curr Sports Med Rep. 2006; 5: 120-124
        • Keeter S.
        • Kennedy C.
        • Dimock M.
        • Best J.
        • Craighill P.
        Gauging the Impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey.
        Public Opin Q. 2006; 70: 759-779
        • Curtin R.
        • Presser S.
        • Singer E.
        The effects of response rate changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment.
        Public Opin Q. 2000; 64: 413-428