AAGS 2021

60 Return-to-play For the return-to-training phase, approximately half of to the majority of club and national federation respondents (40% to 60%) perceived the medical area as extremely influential. Approximately a third of these perceived the performance area as very influential (30% to 36%). The role of doctors and physiotherapists was perceived as extremely influential and very influential by the majority and approximately a third-to-half of club (48% to 56%) and national federation (40%) respondents. Dedicated return-to-play specialists were perceived as very influential to this phase by approximately a third of respondents (30% to 32%). Perceptions on the influence of massage therapists, team fitness coaches, gym fitness coaches, and sports scientists were unclear. For the return-to-competition phase, approximately half of club and national federation respondents perceived medical and performance areas as very influential (40% to 48%). Team fitness coaches and physiotherapists were perceived as very influential by approximately a third-to-half of club (40% to 44%) and national federation (30% to 50%) respondents. The role of doctors in this phase was perceived as very influential and extremely influential by club (44%) and national federation (40%) respondents, respectively. Unclear perceptions emerged regarding the on the influence of massage therapists, gym fitness coaches, and sports scientists during this phase. For the return-to-performance phase, the majority of club and national federation respondents perceived the performance area as extremely influential. In contrast, perceptions regarding the role of the medical area were unclear. Approximately a third of club and national federation respondents perceived it somewhat and extremely influential, respectively. Team fitness coaches were perceived as extremely influential by approximately half of respondents (40% to 48%). The role of doctors in this phase was perceived as somewhat influential and extremely influential by approximately a third of club and national federation respondents (30% to 40%), respectively. A minority and approximately half of respondents perceived sports scientists as somewhat influential and extremely influential at their clubs (24%) and national federations (30%), respectively. The influence of other staff members in this phase was unclear. The majority to almost all of the respondents indicated that consensus among staff members is generally sought to inform the return-to-play process (60% to 96%), outcomes from layoffs longer than 28 days are formally reviewed (70% to 88%) and recorded to guide future practice (60% to 88%) by medical and performance staff. Outcomes of this process are shared with performance team, coaches, and academy director in the majority of clubs (72% to 88%). Approximately half of national federation respondents (40%) indicated injury prevention outcomes are shared with performance team and coaches. Injury prevention Team fitness coaches were perceived as extremely influential in the injury prevention process by approximately a third-to-half of the club (44%) and national federation (40%) respondents. Likewise, approximately a third of club (32%) and national federation (30%) respondents perceived physiotherapists as very and extremely influential in the injury prevention process. A minority to approximately a third perceived gym and dedicated fitness coaches as very influential in the process within club and national federations, respectively. The role of doctors and massage therapists was perceived as not at all or slightly influential in the prevention process irrespective of the organisation context. Club respondents indicated the median number of weekly prevention sessions during pre-training, warm-up, in-training, and post-training was 4 (IQR, 2 to 5), 5 (2 to 5), 2 (0 to 3), and 3 (2 to 4), respectively. The typical length of each these sessions was 15 minutes. The median number of prevention sessions national federations included in a typical week in 3 (2 to 5) pre-training, 4 (2 to 6) during warm-up, 3 (2 to 5) in- session, and 5 (4 to 6) post-training. A session during each of these phases typically ranged from 10 minutes (i.e., post-training) to 25 minutes (i.e., pre-training). Injury prevention programmes are typically delivered both pre- and post-training at group- and individual player-level (60% to 80%) in the majority of clubs. The majority of the respondents also indicated that programmes are included also in group-level warm-up sessions (68%). Approximately half to the majority of national federations include group-level prevention programmes during pre-training and warm-up (50% to 60%). The majority to almost all of the respondents indicated the injury prevention process is informed by consensus among staff members (80% to 90%), the injury prevention process is formally reviewed (60% to 72%) and recorded to guide future practice (60% to 92%) by medical and performance staff. Approximately half of the respondents (40% to 48%) indicated that injury data are reviewed on a weekly basis. A majority of club respondents (68% to 88%) indicated outcomes of this process are generally shared with performance team, coaches, and academy director. Approximately half of national federation respondents (40% to 50%) indicated injury prevention outcomes are shared with performance team and coaches. Data management Respondents indicated that medical and performance data were generally centralized at across the first team and at academy level in at least approximately half and majority of professional clubs and national federations, respectively (range, 50% to 72%). Almost all of the clubs and national federations use a data management system (range, 70% to 92%), with an off the shelf solution provided by an external company (e.g., Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA) accounting for