# Running-Centred Injury Prevention Support: A Scoping Review on Current Injury Risk Reduction Practices for Runners

## TL;DR

This review explores injury prevention strategies for runners, highlighting the need for individualized, supported approaches and the gap between expert advice and runner behavior.

## Contribution

The study maps current injury risk reduction practices for runners and identifies key themes and disparities in expert and runner perspectives.

## Key findings

- Supervision and support are critical for effective injury prevention in runners.
- Key strategies include strengthening, gait re-education, wearables, and graduated running programs.
- Runners often rely on self-efficacy rather than expert advice for injury risk reduction.

## Abstract

Background: Runners have not benefited from the same reduction in injury rates seen in injury prevention studies conducted in other sports.

Objectives: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and map injury risk reduction practices for running-related injury (RRI), methods of delivery and understand the views of experts and runner's preferences in reducing RRI.

Design: Scoping review.

Methods: We conducted systematic database searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus from 2000 to April 2024. Eligible studies included injury prevention strategies for RRI. Data synthesis was conducted according to PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews using Joanna Briggs Institute framework methodology. Extracted data were mapped and coded from intervention studies, expert opinions and reviews, and inductive thematic analysis created subthemes and themes from prospective cohorts, qualitative studies and surveys.

Results: A total of 3777 studies were identified, and 106 studies met the inclusion criteria. In intervention studies, supervision and support appeared critical for better effect. Key injury prevention topics were strengthening, gait re-education and wearables, graduated running programmes, footwear, recovery and educational advice. A multifactorial approach considering individual risk profiles was recommended by experts, but there was a disparity in what runners do to reduce injury risk compared to expert advice, with actions appearing to be related to self-efficacy rather than avoidance.

Conclusion: This scoping review highlighted runners require individualized, supported and multifactorial approaches for injury risk reduction, and runners seek knowledge on purpose. We found runners injury risk reduction practices should begin early with youth runners and facilitating this through coaching supervision is likely to support behaviour change. Strategies such as gait retraining, wearables and recovery need further exploration but provide promising strategies runners may engage with more. As runners are likely to choose familiar options minimally impacting lifestyle and running, they should be provided with education but need support with their choices to influence beliefs.