Injury;Sports
Conditions
Keywords
injury prevention, cognition, physical performance, postural stability, neuromuscular
Brief summary
This project will utilize a quasi-experimental, multiple baseline pretest-posttest design where participants will complete postural stability assessments, physical performance assessments, and questionnaires to evaluate perceptions toward injury prevention before and after completing a 6-week neuromuscular-cognitive prevention program.
Detailed description
The I-THINC program will address aspects of cognition (i.e., reaction time/processing speed, working memory, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, attention, and dual-tasking) while completing common movement patterns utilized in tennis (i.e., lateral shuffle, rapid acceleration/deceleration, and postural stability). The proposed program will take place in the participants training facility. The program will be implemented twice per week for six weeks (12 sessions) with each session lasting 20 minutes. To add variety, there will be two complementary programs (A and B) comprising of four exercises increasing in complexity every two weeks. Each week participants will complete Program A during the first session and Program B during the second session.Exercises will progressively challenge cognitive and physical demand. Exercises were designed to address the most common injuries in tennis.
Interventions
OTHERI-THINC
Improved Training Happens with Integrated Neuromuscular and Cognitive Challenge (I-THINC) is an injury prevention program. It will be used to integrate cognitive tasks with traditional sports injury prevention approaches that focus on balance, agility, and neuromuscular control.
Sponsors
Ke'La H Porter
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* healthy adults from the University of Kentucky varsity tennis programs
Exclusion criteria
* not medically cleared for participation
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in single task static postural stability | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Single task static postural stability will be assessed with an Accusway Plus force plate. |
| Change in dual task postural stability | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Dual task static postural stability will be assessed with an Accusway Plus force plate while completeing an upper extremity reaction time on the Dynavision D2. |
| Change in dynamic postural control | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Dynamic postural control will be assessed with the single leg hop. |
| Change in dual task dynamic postural control | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Dynamic postural control will be assessed with the single leg hop. An additional cognitive task - responding to LED color cues - will be added. |
| Change in speed, power and agility (single measure) | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Speed, power and agility will be measured using the Run Decide Test. |
| Change in reactive agility | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Reactive agility will be assessed with the 4x4 box drill. |
| Change in lower extremity reaction time | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Lower extremity reaction time will be assessed with the lower extremity reaction test, deactivating sensors as quickly as possible with their foot. |
| Change in HBMS | 6 weeks (baseline, one week after baseline, and immediately following the 6 week intervention) | Health Belief Model Scale (HBMS) is used to assess behavioral determinants of exercise related injury prevention programs and is comprised of six subscales: susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy. Participants rate how strongly they agree or disagree with the statements on a Likert scale ranging from 3 to -3, with a 3 indicating strongly agree and -3 indicating strongly disagree. Positive responses indicate a positive perception towards injury prevention programs, except the barrier subscale where positive responses indicate a negative perception towards injury prevention programs. |
| Participant engagement | at 6 weeks | The participant engagement survey will contain Likert Scale (1-5) questions to provide a quantitative analysis of satisfaction with the program. A 1 indicates strongly disagree and a 5 indicates strongly agree. The range is 7-35, and higher scores indicate increased engagement. |
| Compliance | 6 weeks | Compliance will be based on the percentage of sessions attended by participants. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed