4.2 Article

Strategies for injury prevention in Brazilian football: Perceptions of physiotherapists and practices of premier league teams

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
Volume 28, Issue -, Pages 1-8

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.07.004

Keywords

Sports injuries; Soccer; Tests; Exercises

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To describe the physiotherapists perceptions and the current practices for injury prevention in elite football (soccer) clubs in Brazil. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Group of Science in Sports & Exercise, Federal University of Healthy Sciences of Porto Alegre (Brazil). Participants: 16 of the 20 football clubs involved in the Brazilian premier league 2015. Main outcome measures: Physiotherapists answered a structured questionnaire. Results: Most physiotherapists (similar to 88%) were active in design, testing and application of prevention programs. Previous injury, muscle imbalance, fatigue, hydration, fitness, diet, sleep/rest and age were considered very important or important injury risk factors by all respondents. The methods most commonly used to detect athletes' injury risk were: monitoring of biochemical markers (100% of teams), isokinetic dynamometry (81%), questionnaires (75%), functional movement screen (56%), fieximetry (56%) and horizontal jump tests (50%). All clubs used strength training, functional training, core exercises and balance/proprioception exercises in their injury prevention program; and Nordic hamstring exercise and other eccentric exercises were used by 94% of clubs. FIFA 11+ prevention program was adapted by 88% of clubs. Conclusion: Physiotherapists perceptions and current practices of injury prevention within Brazilian elite football clubs were similar to those employed in developed countries. There remains a gap between clinical practice and scientific evidence in high performance football. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available