Government & Nonprofit

Implementing injury surveillance systems alongside injury prevention programs: evaluation of an online surveillance system in a community setting

Description
Implementing injury surveillance systems alongside injury prevention programs: evaluation of an online surveillance system in a community setting
Published
of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Open Access Implementing injury surveillance systemsalongside injury prevention programs: evaluationof an online surveillance system in a communitysetting Christina L Ekegren 1* , Alex Donaldson 2 , Belinda J Gabbe 1 and Caroline F Finch 2 Abstract Background:  Previous research aimed at improving injury surveillance standards has focused mainly on issues of data quality rather than upon the implementation of surveillance systems. There are numerous settings whereinjury surveillance is not mandatory and having a better understanding of the barriers to conducting injurysurveillance would lead to improved implementation strategies. One such setting is community sport, where a lack of available epidemiological data has impaired efforts to reduce injury. This study aimed to i) evaluate use of aninjury surveillance system following delivery of an implementation strategy; and ii) investigate factors influencingthe implementation of the system in community sports clubs. Methods:  A total of 78 clubs were targeted for implementation of an online injury surveillance system(approximately 4000 athletes) in five community Australian football leagues concurrently enrolled in a pragmatictrial of an injury prevention program called FootyFirst. System implementation was evaluated quantitatively, usingthe RE-AIM framework, and qualitatively, via semi-structured interviews with targeted-users. Results:  Across the 78 clubs, there was 69% reach, 44% adoption, 23% implementation and 9% maintenance.Reach and adoption were highest in those leagues receiving concurrent support for the delivery of FootyFirst. Targeted-users identified several barriers and facilitators to implementation including personal (e.g. belief in theimportance of injury surveillance), socio-contextual (e.g. understaffing and athlete underreporting) and systemsfactors (e.g. the time taken to upload injury data into the online system). Conclusions:  The injury surveillance system was implemented and maintained by a small proportion of clubs.Outcomes were best in those leagues receiving concurrent support for the delivery of FootyFirst, suggesting thatengagement with personnel at all levels can enhance uptake of surveillance systems. Interview findings suggestthat increased uptake could also be achieved by educating club personnel on the importance of recording injuries,developing clearer injury surveillance guidelines, increasing club staffing and better remunerating those whoconduct surveillance, as well as offering flexible surveillance systems in a range of accessible formats. By increasingthe usage of surveillance systems, data will better represent the target population and increase our understandingof the injury problem, and how to prevent it, in specific settings. Keywords:  Injury; Surveillance; Safety; RE-AIM framework; Implementation; Qualitative; Interviews; Sport;Australian football * Correspondence: christina.ekegren@monash.edu 1 Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University,Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, AustraliaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2014 Ekegren et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the srcinal work is properly credited. Ekegren  et al. Injury Epidemiology   2014,  1 :19http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/19  Background The development of successful injury prevention stra-tegies is reliant on high-quality epidemiological dataabout the incidence and severity of injuries (Holder et al.2001). In order to be useful for prevention purposes, in- jury surveillance data should be reliable, valid, represen-tative of the target population and recorded continually over time (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2001). Upholding such standards is a persistent chal-lenge faced by those who implement and maintain injury surveillance systems.There is now a large body of research aimed at im-proving standards of practice in injury surveillance(Doraiswamy  1999; Ezenkwele and Holder 2001; Orchard et al. 2005; Fuller et al. 2006; McKinnon et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2009). However, much of this research has focusedon issues of data quality rather than upon the implemen-tation of injury surveillance systems (McKinnon et al.2009). One of the key reasons for this is that many injury surveillance systems operate within settings where surveil-lance is mandatory, such as hospitals, where system usersare often obligated to conduct surveillance as part of theirrole (Marson et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2009; Doraiswamy  1999). Hence, there has been less need to focus on ways of encouraging users to adopt and maintain injury surveil-lance systems.There are numerous settings where injury surveillanceis not mandatory, but its implementation would greatly enhance efforts to reduce injury (Boergerhoff et al. 1999;Finch and Mitchell 2002; Finch 2012; Goode et al. 2014). One such setting is community sport, where the majo-rity of organised sports participation in Australia takesplace (Finch et al. 1999; Australian Bureau of Statistics2012). Sports participation can be associated with nu-merous injuries and high injury-related healthcare costs(Potter-Forbes and Aisbett 2003; Tovell et al. 2012), yet through the delivery of effective injury prevention strat-egies, many sports injuries are avoidable (Gabbett 2004;Quarrie et al. 2007; Emery et al. 2007; Steffen et al. 2008; Gilchrist et al. 2008; Orchard and Seward 2009; Emery  2010). To date, it has been difficult to develop effectiveinjury prevention strategies and safety policies for com-munity sports settings as the majority of epidemiologicaldata on sports injuries have been collected on professionaland elite athletes, and are not relevant to community-levelsporting populations (Finch 2012).In order to obtain high-quality epidemiological dataon community sports participants, injury surveillance sys-tems are required. However, there are substantial con-textual barriers to the implementation of such systems incommunity sport, including a lack of resources and a re-liance on volunteer personnel (Donaldson et al. 2012).Without mandating injury surveillance in community sports, sports bodies and researchers are faced withthe challenge of encouraging club personnel to adoptwhat is essentially a voluntary task.A systematic approach is required to understand andovercome the barriers to implementing surveillance sys-tems in this setting. Principles of implementation scienceare new to the field of injury surveillance research butcould potentially enhance these efforts. Very few studieshave used theoretical frameworks to guide the develop-ment of implementation strategies for surveillance sys-tems (de Mheen PJ et al. 2006; Zargaran et al. 2014) and only one surveillance study has incorporated imple-mentation frameworks (such as the RE-AIM framework(Glasgow et al. 1999)) into its evaluation (de Mheen PJet al. 2006). As yet, no studies have used principles of implementation science to systematically trial and evalu-ate the implementation of an injury surveillance systemin sport.This study aimed to i) evaluate use of an online injury surveillance system following delivery of an implemen-tation strategy; and ii) investigate factors influencing theimplementation of the system in community sportsclubs. To address the first aim, the implementation of the surveillance system was evaluated using the RE-AIMframework. This framework, well-known in the fieldof implementation science, consists of five domains:reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and mainten-ance (Glasgow et al. 1999). The second aim was achieved via a series of semi-structured interviews conducted withpotential end-users of the surveillance system. These in- vestigations were conducted as part of the larger NoGAPSproject (National Guidance for Australian Football Part-nerships and Safety), a four-year study aiming to pre- vent injuries via an evidence-informed training program(known as FootyFirst) in community Australian footballclubs (Finch et al. 2011). Methods Setting and background to the study Australian football is a popular (Standing Committee onSport and Recreation 2010), fast-paced contact sportwhich involves running and moving the ball by hand(handballing) and foot (kicking) (Australian FootballLeague 2010). It is associated with numerous injuries(Finch et al. 2013) and has the highest frequency of hos-pitalised injuries of any sport in Australia (Flood andHarrison 2006; Henley  2007). In 2011, five community  Australian football leagues (n = 78 clubs, approximately 4000 athletes) in the state of Victoria, Australia agreedto be involved in the parent project. For the purposes of this project, the five leagues were allocated to one of three study arms, each receiving a different level of sup-port for the delivery of FootyFirst (Finch et al. 2011).Arm 1 consisted of two regional leagues (n = 22 clubs)in South-Western Victoria; arm 2 consisted of one large Ekegren  et al. Injury Epidemiology   2014,  1 :19 Page 2 of 15http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/19  metropolitan league (n = 31 clubs); and arm 3 consistedof two regional leagues in North-Western Victoria (n =25 clubs). The FootyFirst program, designed to be deliv-ered by an Australian football coach, includes a combin-ation of dynamic stretches, strengthening exercises, and jumping/landing techniques. It is targeted at preventingankle, knee, hamstring, groin and hip injuries in com-munity Australian football players (Donaldson 2014).To better understand the implementation context forinjury surveillance activities and improve the design of our implementation strategy, we asked the leagues ’  Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) about the feasibility of on-going injury surveillance within their leagues. No leaguehad a mandatory injury surveillance policy in place, butall CEOs expressed an interest in introducing one. Wheresurveillance was used, club personnel (e.g. sports trainers)used various non-standardised methods to record injuries,mainly for their own purposes (personal communications,18 November, 2011).To further our understanding about injury surveil-lance activities within clubs, we then conducted apre-implementation survey of sports trainers from partici-pating clubs within the five leagues (Ekegren et al. 2012).Sports trainers are non-medically trained personnel em-ployed by sports clubs to provide first-aid and injury man-agement. In summary, 87% of the 33 respondents (32%response rate) recorded injuries at their club on a routinebasis, mostly using paper-based notebooks or forms.Amongst respondents, attitudes towards injury surveil-lance were positive and  ‘ sports trainers ’  were identifiedas those who should be primarily responsible for re-cording injuries at clubs. Participants and recruitment When designing an implementation strategy for any ac-tion, the first of several core implementation componentsto be considered is staff selection (Fixsen et al. 2009).League CEOs and sports trainers were in agreement thatsports trainers were the most appropriate staff for con-ducting injury surveillance. In Australian football, sportstrainers provide on-site first aid at some training sessionsand all matches, referral to external medical or alliedhealth experts if necessary, and ongoing injury manage-ment (Zazryn et al. 2004; Casey et al. 2004). Sports trainers may not have healthcare backgrounds but, inAustralian football, they must all complete an endorsedfirst aid and athlete safety training course (Donaldsonand Finch 2012).Before the start of the 2012 football season, leagueCEOs invited those sports trainers whose email addres-ses they held to attend an information session on theproposed injury surveillance system. For many clubs, theleague did not have sports trainers ’  email addresses, soinstead they contacted the club ’ s coach and asked themto pass on an invitation to their trainer(s). Informationsession attendees provided their contact details to theresearch team to enable follow-up regarding the injury surveillance system. Sports trainers who did not attendinformation sessions were contacted individually by phone and/or email (via their club ’ s coach) about partici-pating in the injury surveillance project. These recruit-ment procedures were repeated at the start of the 2013season to capture any clubs not recruited in 2012 orwho had changed their sports trainers between seasons.Monash University Human Research Ethics Committeegranted ethics approval for all procedures. Procedures The information sessions were part of a multifaceted im-plementation strategy designed to maximise uptake of the system across the three study arms (described later).The strategy incorporated several core implementationcomponents, including training, ongoing coaching andconsultation, and performance evaluation (Fixsen et al.2009). The injury surveillance system implementationstrategy was carried out before and during the 2012 and2013 seasons and consisted of three main elements: 1. Information sessions. The research team conductedinformation sessions at each league headquarters forsports trainers or other club personnel interested inthe proposed injury surveillance system. Thesesessions focused on raising awareness of the value of injury surveillance, including how to use surveillancedata to design and evaluate injury preventionstrategies. An online surveillance tool was alsodemonstrated to the attendees. In two out of thethree sessions, our presentation was incorporatedwithin a package of presentations to sports trainers(e.g. updates on practice guidelines or instructionson taping).2. Personal instruction. Each information sessionattendee was contacted by phone, email or personal visit and provided with further instructions aboutsetting up their online surveillance account. They were sent a user manual and documentation forthem and their coaches to sign, enrolling their clubin the project. Users were also provided with theprimary author ’ s (CLE) email address so that they could request personalised technical support asrequired. They were asked to provide a mobilephone number and agree to receive weekly shortmessage service (SMS) reminders about recordinginjuries throughout the season.3. Weekly reminders. The primary author (CLE)logged onto the online system each week during theseason to review who had recorded injuries thatweek. An SMS reminder (including a request to Ekegren  et al. Injury Epidemiology   2014,  1 :19 Page 3 of 15http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/19  inform us if there had been no new injuries) wassent to those who had not recorded any injuries. Athank you message was sent to those who hadrecorded injuries. Online surveillance tool and surveillance procedures The Victorian branch of Sports Medicine Australia(SMA), Australia ’ s major sports medicine advisory body,developed Sports Injury Tracker as an online tool for re-cording information about specific injury events. Usersclick through six pages completing a range of data fields(Figure 1) by selecting from a list of response options orproviding free-text responses where appropriate. The in- jury variables to be recorded in the online tool are as fol-lows (Sports Medicine Australia 2012): 1. Date of injury 2. Type of activity at time of injury (e.g. match/training)3. Reason for presentation (e.g. new/recurrent/exacerbated injury)4. Mechanism of injury (e.g. struck by other player/etc.)5. Body region injured (e.g. shoulder/thigh/ etc.)6. Nature of injury (e.g. abrasion/ fracture/etc.)7. Initial treatment (e.g. none/ crutches/ etc.) Figure 1  Screenshot of the first page of six to be completed for each injury entered into the online surveillance tool. Ekegren  et al. Injury Epidemiology   2014,  1 :19 Page 4 of 15http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/19  8. Action taken (e.g. immediate return/etc.)9. Referral (e.g. no referral/ physio/etc.)10. Provisional severity assessment (mild/moderate/severe)11. Treating person (e.g. Medical practitioner/etc.)12. Return to football date Once an injury event is recorded, a page is createdsummarising the injury. Graphs and spreadsheets sum-marising recorded injuries can be downloaded. Apaper-based version of Sports Injury Tracker system isalso available, allowing recording and transfer to theonline system at a later date [see Additional file 1].As part of their personal instructions, sports trainerswere asked to record  ‘ any new football-related injury occurring during football training sessions or matches ’ including overuse and traumatic injuries. They wereasked to do this every week, recording any new injuriesoccurring in the previous seven days. Before the start of each football season, participating sports trainers in-formed all athletes at their clubs about the study andgave them an opportunity to ask questions. Athleteswho did not want their injury details recorded couldopt-out, but only one individual chose this option. Evaluation The evaluation consisted of two parts  —  a quantitativeevaluation using the RE-AIM framework (Glasgow et al.1999) and qualitative semi-structured interviews explor-ing factors affecting implementation of the injury sur- veillance system. Quantitative evaluation The RE-AIM framework, widely used in implementationscience, consists of five domains: reach, efficacy, adop-tion, implementation and maintenance (Glasgow et al.1999). As RE-AIM was originally designed to evaluatethe public health impact of interventions (Glasgow et al.1999), we re-operationalised the five domains in order toapply them to the implementation of an injury surveil-lance system (Table 1). For this study we defined  ‘ reach ’ as the proportion of the target population (representativesfrom 78 clubs) who attended an information session aboutthe surveillance system or had phone/email contact with aresearch team member expressing interest in using thesystem. The term  ‘ efficacy  ’  is not often applied to injury surveillance systems. Instead, terms conveying the quality of the recorded data, such as  ‘  validity  ’  or  ‘ completeness ’ are used to indicate that a surveillance system is operatingsuccessfully (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2001). The quality of data recorded by sports trainersusing the online tool has been previously reported andreaders are referred to this publication for further detailsabout the  ‘ E ’  domain of the RE-AIM framework in thecontext of this study (Ekegren et al. 2014. doi:10.1111/sms.12216.).  ‘ Adoption ’  was defined as the proportion of football clubs that agreed to participate and set up anonline account with the intention of conducting injury surveillance. In relation to the  ‘ implementation ’  of the sur- veillance system, we did not consider clubs to have fully implemented the system if they recorded less than 10 in- juries per football season. Previous research about the fre-quency of injury in community Australian football (Finchet al. 2013) would suggest that such low injury numbers ina standard club of 50 players would be a significant under-estimate and would indicate that surveillance had notbeen conducted with adequate diligence. Finally,  ‘ main-tenance ’  was defined as the proportion of football clubsimplementing the surveillance system in 2013, after previ-ously doing so in 2012.The surveillance system implementation strategieswere delivered equally across the three study arms overboth study years. However, there were differences be-tween the study arms in the level of support provided by researchers for the delivery of FootyFirst. Arm 1 receivedFootyFirst with full delivery support over both years.Arm 2 acted as the control arm in Year 1 and receivedFootyFirst (with full delivery support) only in Year 2.Arm 3 received FootyFirst with minimal delivery supportover the two years (Finch et al. 2011). It was hypothe-sised that aspects of this support, such as club en-gagement, asking for clubs ’  input into the project andassigning FootyFirst mentors to participating clubs, could Table 1 RE-AIM domain definitions — srcinal and re-operationalised for implementation of an injurysurveillance system Domain Original definition (Glasgow et al. 1999) Definition as applied to an injury surveillance systemR each Proportion of the target population thatparticipated in the interventionProportion of football clubs informed about and/or trained in use of the injurysurveillance system E fficacy Success rate if implemented as in guidelines Data quality (see (Ekegren et al. 2014. doi:10.1111/sms.12216.) A doption Proportion of settings, practices, and plansthat will adopt this interventionProportion of football clubs that agreed to participate and set up a Sports Injury Tracker account with the intention of conducting injury surveillance I mplementation Extent to which the intervention isimplemented as intended in the real world The proportion of football clubs recording injuries using Sorts Injury Trackerthroughout season (not including clubs recording <10 injuries throughout season) M aintenance Extent to which a program is sustained overtime The proportion of football clubs implementing the surveillance system in 2013 afterdoing so in 2012. Ekegren  et al. Injury Epidemiology   2014,  1 :19 Page 5 of 15http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/19
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks