Cargando…

Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recrui...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mayne, Richard S., Bleakley, Chris M., Matthews, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8480020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34583747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-021-00347-4
_version_ 1784576385719730176
author Mayne, Richard S.
Bleakley, Chris M.
Matthews, Mark
author_facet Mayne, Richard S.
Bleakley, Chris M.
Matthews, Mark
author_sort Mayne, Richard S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recruitment took place at three different 5 km parkrun event across Northern Ireland. Demographics, technology use, running behaviour and running-related injury (RRI) history were examined. Regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between variables. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 192 of 483 eligible finishers (39.8% response rate). Average age was 45.9 years (SD 10.3), with males (47.1 years SD 9.7) slightly older than females (44.8 years SD 10.8). On average, participants ran 3.0 days per week (SD 1.3), with an average weekly distance of 22.6 km (SD 19.7). Males typically ran further (MD 6.2 km/week; 95% CI 0.4 to 12.0) than females. Monitoring technology was used by 87.4% (153/175); with GPS watches the most common device (87.6% (134/153)). Runners using monitoring technology ran further (MD 14.4 km/week; 95% CI 10.3 to 18.5) and more frequently (MD 1.3 days/week; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9) than those who did not use monitoring technology. There was no significant difference in average age between runners who used monitoring technology and those who did not (MD 4.0 years; 95% CI −0.7 to 8.7). RRI was reported by 40.6% (71/175) of participants in the previous 12 months. In a univariate analysis, none of the selected predictors (age, number of days run per week, distance run per week, or usage of technology to modify training pattern) (p > 0.1) were associated with RRI. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high prevalence of monitoring technology usage among recreational runners. While the incidence of RRI remains high, it is not associated with the usage of monitoring technology. Further prospective research should examine if monitoring technology can reduce RRI incidence among recreational runners in future. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-021-00347-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8480020
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84800202021-09-30 Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study Mayne, Richard S. Bleakley, Chris M. Matthews, Mark BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recruitment took place at three different 5 km parkrun event across Northern Ireland. Demographics, technology use, running behaviour and running-related injury (RRI) history were examined. Regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between variables. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 192 of 483 eligible finishers (39.8% response rate). Average age was 45.9 years (SD 10.3), with males (47.1 years SD 9.7) slightly older than females (44.8 years SD 10.8). On average, participants ran 3.0 days per week (SD 1.3), with an average weekly distance of 22.6 km (SD 19.7). Males typically ran further (MD 6.2 km/week; 95% CI 0.4 to 12.0) than females. Monitoring technology was used by 87.4% (153/175); with GPS watches the most common device (87.6% (134/153)). Runners using monitoring technology ran further (MD 14.4 km/week; 95% CI 10.3 to 18.5) and more frequently (MD 1.3 days/week; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9) than those who did not use monitoring technology. There was no significant difference in average age between runners who used monitoring technology and those who did not (MD 4.0 years; 95% CI −0.7 to 8.7). RRI was reported by 40.6% (71/175) of participants in the previous 12 months. In a univariate analysis, none of the selected predictors (age, number of days run per week, distance run per week, or usage of technology to modify training pattern) (p > 0.1) were associated with RRI. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high prevalence of monitoring technology usage among recreational runners. While the incidence of RRI remains high, it is not associated with the usage of monitoring technology. Further prospective research should examine if monitoring technology can reduce RRI incidence among recreational runners in future. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-021-00347-4. BioMed Central 2021-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8480020/ /pubmed/34583747 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-021-00347-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Mayne, Richard S.
Bleakley, Chris M.
Matthews, Mark
Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title_full Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title_short Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
title_sort use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8480020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34583747
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-021-00347-4
work_keys_str_mv AT maynerichards useofmonitoringtechnologyandinjuryincidenceamongrecreationalrunnersacrosssectionalstudy
AT bleakleychrism useofmonitoringtechnologyandinjuryincidenceamongrecreationalrunnersacrosssectionalstudy
AT matthewsmark useofmonitoringtechnologyandinjuryincidenceamongrecreationalrunnersacrosssectionalstudy