Epidemiology of NCAA Track and Field Injuries From 2010 to 2014.

BACKGROUND

Track and field (T&F) athletes compete in a variety of events that require different skills and training characteristics. Descriptive epidemiology studies often fail to describe event-specific injury patterns.

PURPOSE

To describe the epidemiology of injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) T&F by sex, setting (practice vs competition), and time of season (indoor vs outdoor) and to compare injury patterns by events within the sport.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program for all indoor and outdoor T&F injuries during the academic years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014. Injury rates, injury rate ratios, and injury proportion ratios (IPRs) were reported and compared by sex, injury setting, season, and event. Analysis included time-loss as well as no-time loss injuries.

RESULTS

Over the 5 seasons, the overall injury rate was 3.99 injuries per 1000 athletic-exposures (95% CI, 3.79-4.20). After controlling for injury diagnoses, women's T&F athletes experienced an 18% higher risk of injury (95% CI, 7% to 31%) and missed 41% more time after an injury (95% CI, 4% to 93%) when compared with men. Among all athletes, the injury risk during competition was 71% higher (95% CI, 50% to 95%) compared with practice and required 59% more time loss (95% CI, 7% to 135%). Distance running accounted for a significantly higher proportion of overuse injuries (IPR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40-2.05;

CONCLUSION

Injury risk in NCAA T&F varied by sex, season, and setting. Higher injury rates were found in women versus men, indoor versus outdoor seasons, and competitions versus practices. The hip and thigh were the body regions most commonly injured; however, injury types varied by event. These findings may provide insight to programs aiming to reduce the risk of injury and associated time loss in collegiate T&F.

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.