Barriers and facilitators to injury prevention exercise programme (IPEP) maintenance in professional soccer teams categorised by themes and subthemes, including the proportion (%) of total responses included under each theme
| Main theme (percentage of responses) | Subtheme (percentage of responses) | Survey framework | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPEP content/nature (32%) | – | Facilitators | Fun and challenging exercises Positive effect on injury statistics Programme practicality Progression and variation of exercises |
| Barriers | Boring, monotonous exercises Lack of effectiveness and objective measures | ||
| IPEP delivery and support at different ecological levels* (97%) | Player (47%) | Facilitators | Acceptance of the programme Awareness of the benefits Motivation |
| Barriers | Lack of acceptance/knowledge Lack of motivation/diligence | ||
| Team staff (88%) | Facilitators | Acceptance/support from the head coach and other staff Continuity in methodology Explanation from staff to players Staff numbers, knowledge and motivation Planning and organisation | |
| Barriers | Lack of acceptance/support from the head coach and other staff Lack of communication and team work Lack of explanation to players Lack of knowledge and motivation Lack of long-term planning Lack of professional implementation Lack of staff numbers and continuity | ||
| Club (24%) | Facilitators | Club structure and support Incorporation into club policy | |
| Barriers | High number of injuries in the club Lack of structure and support Pressure to win | ||
| Governing bodies (9%) | Facilitators* | – | |
| Barriers | Heavy game schedule |
*The categories governing bodies/facilitators was included because it arose in a previous study using the same survey, but no respondents in the current study provided relevant responses. There were also no relevant responses for the previously identified subtheme ‘external environment’.51