519 EP033 – Barriers and facilitators to implementing musculoskeletal injury mitigation programs for tactical athletes: feedback from key stakeholders in the US military

• Published in: British journal of sports medicine 2024-03, Vol.58 (Suppl 2), p.A90-A90
• Main Authors: Rhon, Daniel I, Motte, Sarah J de la, Fraser, John J, Hando, Ben R, Greenlee, Tina A, Molloy, Joseph M, Teyhen, Deydre S, Tiede, Jeffrey M, VanWyngaarden, Joshua J, Westrick, Richard B, Bullock, Garrett S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: E-Posters; Injury prevention; Prevention programs
• ISSN: 0306-3674; 1473-0480
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2024-IOC.156

BackgroundInjuries are the primary cause of lost duty in the US Military, leading to a widespread focus on, and implementation of injury mitigation programs. The effectiveness of these programs is often questioned, usually related to program fidelity.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize barriers and facilitators for implementing injury mitigation programs in the military.DesignA cross-sectional survey studySettingUS Department of DefenseParticipantsIndividuals were stakeholders tasked with implementing injury mitigation and prevention programs (e.g., clinicians, coaches, trainers) for tactical athletes across the US Military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard).Main Outcome MeasurementsA 24-question survey was circulated to these stakeholders, using a mix of Likert-scale, rank, and open answer responses around perceived 1) knowledge and expertise with current injury prevention science; 2) importance of injury prevention; 3) barriers and facilitators of injury prevention programs; 4) resource needs for injury prevention programs.Results91 participants; affiliations ranged from 69% working with the Army to 1.1% with the Coast Guard. Mean years working with the military was 11.5, with 47% working primarily in tactical/operational settings. There was strong agreement across the strata that injury prevention programs are important and that exercise-based programs can reduce injuries, but disagreement about who should be held accountable for program success. The most common barriers identified were that military training and required physical training paradigms interfere with implementation of injury mitigation programs, and a recognition of high program variability across and even within services (e.g., no consistency or stability). Program facilitation was thought to benefit from high levels of knowledge, expertise, and staffing of individuals assigned to units.ConclusionsWhile most stakeholders agree that injury mitigation programs are important, there appears to be a perceived disconnect between the tasks and training associated with operational readiness and the implementation of injury prevention programs.