Author(s): HIGGINS, P., COCO, B., ONGARO, A., FERREIRA, J., CROGNALE, D., Institution: NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY , Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 2542

INTRODUCTION
Injury surveillance systems underpin our current understanding of injury prevention and athlete welfare strategies. However, only 27% of identified injury surveillance systems operate outside professional or elite sport, and are largely absent in sport settings that lack dedicated medical staff [1]. The dependency on medical staff may contribute to structural under-reporting in female and community sport settings, which make up a large portion of total sport participation. This directly challenges our confidence in promoting injury prevention strategies across sub elite, amateur and female sport, as our evidence underpinning these strategies may not include these cohorts The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a reporting framework, which was accessible to coaching staff, and thereby reduce under-reporting in sub-elite sport.

METHODS
A structured injury reporting system was developed by Olympic Handball Ireland in collaboration with the Institute for Sport & Health, University College Dublin. The framework operationalised International Olympic Committee injury surveillance consensus principles while remaining usable by coaches and designated team representatives without medical training[2]. Standardised variables included injury mechanism, body region, acute vs. overuse, recurrence, and time-loss (1 day). Structured follow-up fields allowed injuries to be updated if medical consultation occurred. The system was piloted over six months within a senior national handball league comprising five male and five female teams (150 athletes).

RESULTS
10 time-loss injuries were recorded during the six-month pilot period (match play (8) ,training (2)). Total match exposure was 504 player-hours (30 domestic matches; 12 international matches). Estimated match time-loss injury incidence was 15.9 injuries per 1000 player-hours. Contact mechanisms accounted for 62.5% of match injuries (n=5). The knee was the most frequently affected region (n=5), followed by lower leg and ankle. Medical consultation was sought in six cases (60%). All injuries were documented with complete mechanism, body region, and time-loss classification.

CONCLUSION
Accessible injury surveillance systems can be embedded within coaching environments and may address structural under-reporting in sub-elite sport. While coach-led reporting may restrict the depth of medical diagnosis and injury mechanism, removing the requirement for medical personnel could improve our understanding of the injury burden across diverse sporting environments.

[1] Ekegren CL, Gabbe BJ & Finch CF (2016). Sports Injury Surveillance Systems: A Review of Methods and Data Quality. Sports Med 46, 49–65.
[2] Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Derman, W., et al. (2020). International Olympic Committee consensus statement: Methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(7), 372-389.