Author(s): LEVIN, S., TERVO, T., IVARSSON, A., HÄGGLUND, M., STENLING, A., Institution: UMEÅ UNIVERSITY, Country: SWEDEN, Abstract-ID: 2058

Introduction
Sport injuries are common in most sports, at elite level as well as among youth athletes. To reduce the occurrence of sport injuries, understanding the risk factors associated with injuries is essential. During the last decade, there have been calls in the literature for more holistic approaches to understand how combinations of factors affect injury risk. The aim of the present study was to employ a person-centered approach to identify combinations of psychological and physical factors that influence the risk of injury among youth floorball players.

Methods
In the beginning of the floorball season 222 youth athletes (age:15-19, female: n=97) underwent physical field tests and completed a baseline survey, which included demographic information and assessments of psychological well-being (i.e., depression and anxiety symptoms). At the end of the season, participants were asked to report any traumatic or overuse injuries experienced during the season. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify potential risk profiles among the athletes. We then conducted a covariate analysis with sex, age, height, weight, previous injury history and injury status at baseline as predictors of profile belonging. Finally, we compared injury risk between the identified profiles.

Results
The LPA resulted in a three-profile solution where profile 1 (n=101) reported above average psychological well-being and higher results on physical field test than the other profiles, whereas profile 2 (n=49) had lower psychological well-being than the other profiles, and profile 3 (n=72) performed the worst on physical field tests. Covariate analysis showed that athletes who were injured at baseline were more likely to belong to profile 2 when compared to profile 1, no other significant differences were observed. A total of 113 athletes (50.9%) reported an injury at the end of the season. The analysis of distal outcomes (traumatic or overuse injury) showed that profile 1 had a higher risk of any injury compared to profile 2 (risk difference RD=16.5%, 95% CI [-0.3-33.4]) and profile 3 (RD=15.0%, 95% CI [0.0-29.9]). Additionally, profile 1 exhibited a higher risk of acute injury compared to profile 3 (RD=16.6%, 95% CI [3.8-29.4]).

Discussion
Surprisingly, our findings revealed that the athletes with high physical ability and low levels of depression and anxiety had the highest risk of injury. One potential explanation could be that athletes in this profile engage in more practices and competitive games (compared to athletes in the other two profiles), which exposes them to more risk situations, higher physical load, and insufficient recovery. These findings have practical implications for seasonal planning and highlight the coaches role as key figures in assisting youth athletes to balance the demands of training intensity with adequate recovery.