You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 24, Issue 1
  • Developing predictive models for return to work using the Military Power, Performance and Prevention (MP3) musculoskeletal injury risk algorithm: a study protocol for an injury risk assessment programme

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Study protocol
Developing predictive models for return to work using the Military Power, Performance and Prevention (MP3) musculoskeletal injury risk algorithm: a study protocol for an injury risk assessment programme
  1. Daniel I Rhon1,2,
  2. Deydre S Teyhen3,
  3. Scott W Shaffer2,4,
  4. Stephen L Goffar5,
  5. Kyle Kiesel6,
  6. Phil P Plisky6
  1. 1Center for the Intrepid, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, Baylor University, JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
  3. 3U.S. Army Health Clinic, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, USA
  4. 4Army Medical Department Center and School, Graduate School, JBSA, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
  5. 5University of the Incarnate Word, School of Physical Therapy, San Antonio, Texas, USA
  6. 6University of Evansville, School of Physical Therapy, Evansville, Indiana, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniel Rhon, 1315 Roger Brooke Drive, San Antonio, TX 78250, USA; daniel.i.rhon.mil{at}mail.mil

Abstract

Background Musculoskeletal injuries are a primary source of disability in the US Military, and low back pain and lower extremity injuries account for over 44% of limited work days annually. History of prior musculoskeletal injury increases the risk for future injury. This study aims to determine the risk of injury after returning to work from a previous injury. The objective is to identify criteria that can help predict likelihood for future injury or re-injury.

Methods There will be 480 active duty soldiers recruited from across four medical centres. These will be patients who have sustained a musculoskeletal injury in the lower extremity or lumbar/thoracic spine, and have now been cleared to return back to work without any limitations. Subjects will undergo a battery of physical performance tests and fill out sociodemographic surveys. They will be followed for a year to identify any musculoskeletal injuries that occur. Prediction algorithms will be derived using regression analysis from performance and sociodemographic variables found to be significantly different between injured and non-injured subjects.

Discussion Due to the high rates of injuries, injury prevention and prediction initiatives are growing. This is the first study looking at predicting re-injury rates after an initial musculoskeletal injury. In addition, multivariate prediction models appear to have move value than models based on only one variable. This approach aims to validate a multivariate model used in healthy non-injured individuals to help improve variables that best predict the ability to return to work with lower risk of injury, after a recent musculoskeletal injury.

Trial registration number NCT02776930.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042234

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Background

    Musculoskeletal injuries are a primary source of disability in the US Military.1–3 In the US Army, musculoskeletal injuries accounted for 73% of all disability cases from 1997 to 2002, and have been identified as the single most common (53%) reason for discharge from service.1–3 Disability from musculoskeletal injury is a significant deterrent to US Soldiers being ready to deploy in support of military operations.2–5

    In 2007, musculoskeletal injuries resulted in approximately 2.4 million medical visits to military treatment facilities and accounted for US$548 million dollars in direct patient care costs.6 The cumulative incidence of injuries requiring an outpatient visit in the US Army entry-level training has reported at about 25% for men and 55% for women.7–9 Lower extremity injuries are the leading cause of limited work days, accounting for over 4.8 million of the 11 million limited work days annually related to injury, and accounting for 80% of all ambulatory care visits related to musculoskeletal injuries.10 ,11

    One of the most consistent risk factors described in the literature for sustaining musculoskeletal injuries is a history of prior injury.12–17 Reoccurrence of musculoskeletal injuries is prevalent in athletes, with re-injury rates ranging between 17.8%, 24% and 33% for ankle sprains, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and hamstrings strains, respectively.18–20 The same is true in a military population. Prior injury was one of the strongest predictors of sustaining an injury in a cohort of the US Army Rangers.21 Failure to completely recover from a prior injury is associated with delayed graduation from training or complete separation from military service.22 History of a prior lower extremity injury or low back pain (LBP) is also identified with increased injury rates during predeployment training in soldiers.17 This highlights the need for an improved understanding of musculoskeletal injury risk after an initial injury, and when soldiers can return to work after injury, with minimal risk of future injury.

    Some research suggests that while traditional measures of strength and joint range of motion may normalise after injury, movement asymmetries and neuromuscular control deficits may persist, leading to a higher risk of injury.23 ,24 This may be a recurrence of a previous injury, or as a result of persistent deficits in movement and motor control from a previous injury, a different injury can occur. Screening functional movement and biomechanics to identify injury risk has been used before,25 but most research has been done in healthy populations in order to identify risk of injury in a healthy individual.24 The predictive value of these tests have been assessed in healthy soldiers.21 However, the predictive validity of many of these measures is limited, and they have not been specifically studied in a heterogeneous military population after an injury has occurred. Critical analysis of these measures in military service members cleared to return to work without limitations after a musculoskeletal injury would help identify factors that are predictive of re-injury. This would help optimise return to work planning and interventions that help minimise the risk of recurrence. These findings can ultimately help guide injury prevention efforts in order to ensure appropriate, safe and rapid return to work without limitations.

    Methods/design

    The proposed study is a prospective observational cohort, and has been registered (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02776930). Ethics review and approval has been provided by the Madigan Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

    Participants

    We plan to enrol 480 active duty service members who have recently sustained a musculoskeletal injury, but have recovered to the point where they have been cleared to return to full work duties without any limitations (figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Proposed study flow of subjects through the study. MDR, Military Health System Data Repository; SMS, Short Message Service.

    With an expected injury rate of 20%–50% and a study completion rate of 75%, we plan to have 180 subjects (360 total) that successfully complete the study for each of the two target conditions (lower extremity and lumbar/thoracic spine injuries) at 1 year. This will allow for enough subjects to be enrolled to account for any problems with baseline data collection and oversampling/undersampling based on the unit-based data collection procedures used in this study. Based on recruitment from previous work, we anticipate a 75%–85% recruitment rate and a 75% 1-year completion rate (75% in Prevention of Low Back Pain in the Military trial26 and 85% in Military Power, Performance, Prevention trial.21 Estimates from a healthy population estimate that approximately 20% of male and 40%–50% of female service members will sustain at least one time loss musculoskeletal injury over a 1-year period.7–9 As a history of prior injury is one of the strongest predictors for re-injury, and all of our subjects will already have this variable present, we have moved our conservative male injury rate from 20% to 30% and expect to have successful completion of 135 subjects per specific cohort. We further estimate based on these numbers, that approximately 40 service members per cohort will sustain a time loss injury, thus providing the potential for a robust 5–10 variable regression model per cohort.27 At the same time, in order to test our hypothesis based on sex, we will keep enrolment open to female subjects until we reach a minimum target of 100.

    Inclusion criteria

    1. The US active duty military service member.

    2. Age 18–45 years (or emancipated minor).

    3. A lower extremity or lumbar/thoracic spine injury was the primary reason the patient was seeking care.

    4. Patient has been deemed ready to return to work without any limitations by their medical provider.

    Exclusion criteria

    1. Service members who plan on leaving the military in the following 12 months after enrolment in the study (separation or retirement from the military, or medical board), which will be the full period of injury surveillance.

    2. A concomitant injury for which the patient is already seeking or planning to seek medical care.

    3. Any type of restricted or modified work programme due to a musculoskeletal injury; must be returning to work without any limitations.

    4. Service members pending a Medical Evaluation Board.

    5. Trauma or polytrauma that results in amputation of any limbs or appendages.

    6. Injuries from high velocity incidents, such as motor vehicle injury, etc.

    7. Pregnancy, or recently pregnant within the last 6 months—subjects who become pregnant during the course of the study will be withdrawn based on the different injury risk factors that may be associated with musculoskeletal injury during pregnancy.

    Training

    Great effort was taken to standardise the training and ensure testing is being conducted the same at all sites. All testers were required to complete online courses offered by Functional Movement (functionalmovement.com) and by Medbridge (medbridge.com) related to this material, and then attended a 2-day training course to review everything in person with subject matter experts in the content (study authors, etc). They were required to show independence and appropriateness with administering every single test, and had to be checked off on every test by one of the content experts.

    Study flow

    Entry into study

    Patients will be managed by their medical provider according to usual practice. Once the episode of care is complete for that injury and at the point when medical provider would normally discharge a soldier back to full duty, the soldier will be referred for a physical performance discharge testing. This will include the methodologies listed in the next section, which have all been identified to help predict injury in various military and athlete populations. These were also used in the recent prospective cohort our team conducted to derive an injury prediction algorithm across various healthy military occupational specialties in the US Army.

    Procedures for referral for discharge assessment

    The appointment for Physical Performance Discharge Assessment (PPDA) will be an appointment booked in the physical therapy clinic. The patient's managing medical provider (either physical therapist or primary care) will deem when it is appropriate to book that appointment for each patient based on their individual plan of care. This will be done at the normal point in time in which the clinician would typically discharge the patient. At that time the patient will be booked into that appointment via normal standard-of-care procedures for booking appointments in each physical therapy clinic.

    Discharge assessment procedures

    Upon arrival at the PPDA medical appointment, the service member will begin the discharge testing with self-report questionnaires that consist of a global rating of change, Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ), Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), body region-specific disability, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and perceived injury recovery status. These are all standard of care tools that are commonly used in standard physical therapy care for these patients.

    Upon completion of these steps, the patient will be informed about the details of the study, be consented by approved study personnel and then enrolled in the study. At that point, the following additional tools will be filled out by the subject: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), injury surveillance contact information and study-specific demographic information.

    Patients who do not wish to enrol or do not meet the inclusion criteria will be discharged with instructions to continue with the original discharge plan of care outlined by their specific medical provider.

    Subjects who are enrolled in the study will also be provided instructions to continue with the original plan of care outlined by their provider upon discharge from medical care (physical therapist or primary care provider). Each service member will then also be contacted monthly for the following year to identify information about additional injury or profile that they may have sustained during the prior period of time. Information about injury will also be calculated from patient chart reviews and Department of Defence (DoD) healthcare utilisation database, as outlined further below.

    Assessments

    The following assessments will be provided to every subject, and a proposed flow of testing has been outlined in figure 2. Specific details of how every physical performance test will be setup, executed and scored are outlined in online supplementary appendix A.

    Supplementary appendices

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Proposed flow of testing stations.

    Physical performance measures

    The functional movement screen

    The functional movement screen (FMS) is a comprehensive exam that rates quality of fundamental movement patterns to identify an individual's limitations or asymmetries (see online supplementary appendix A1).28 ,29 It is an objective measure of seven individual movement tasks (push up, in-line lunge, hurdle step, rotary stability, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise and deep squat) that is scored on a 0–3 ordinal scale. The scores from the seven movement patterns are summed, a composite score is obtained and any asymmetries are recorded. The inter-rater reliability of the FMS has been evaluated by the research team as well as other researchers and exhibited substantial to excellent agreement (κ values=0.74–1.00) in an athletic population.

    Selective functional movement assessment

    The selective functional movement assessment (SFMA) is a short inventory of the quality of 10 basic musculoskeletal movements to identify incomplete movements as well as the presence of painful patterns (see online supplementary appendix A2). The SFMA targets a more basic level of movement in comparison with the FMS and complements the information provided by the FMS in an abbreviated time frame (3 min). Each movement of the SFMA is scored as either functional or non-functional and as painful or non-painful. How performance on the SFMA changes over the course of rehabilitation is also being evaluated by others.30

    Lower quarter Y-balance

    The lower quarter Y-balance (YBT-LQ) is a test of dynamic balance that examines single limb reach in three different directions to examine an individual's limitations and asymmetries of this metric (see online supplementary appenidx A3).31 ,32 Dynamic balance performance is examined independently using the right and left leg as the stance leg while reaching in the anterior, posteromedial and posterolateral directions. Reach distances are normalised to leg length in order to minimise the effect of anthropometric measures on the testing. Previous research has established the YBT-LQ as a reliable measure across raters and days, as well reach asymmetries and low performance on the test has previously been observed in the literature to predict non-contact injuries in athlete populations.32–34

    Upper quarter Y-balance

    The upper quarter Y-balance (YBT-UQ) is a test of upper quarter function that examines how far an individual can reach in three directions (medial, inferolateral and superolateral) while maintaining a plank position with one hand and two feet in contact with the ground (see online supplementary appendix A4). Performance on the test examines overall reach performance, normalised to arm length, as well as asymmetries between sides. Previous research on the YBT-UQ has suggested moderate correlations exist between YBT-UQ test performance and traditional functional tests of the shoulder and core musculature.35 There appear to be no apparent differences between extremity sides or genders in an active adult population.35

    Hop testing

    Standardised hop testing will be completed to assess lower extremity strength and power (see online supplementary appendix A5). The protocol for the current study will examine single leg hopping for a single jump, triple jump and triple crossover jump. Hop data will be collected for left and right sides and the data will be analysed using a limb symmetry index. Previous research on this hop testing protocol has been established to be reliable as well as being effective in distinguishing patients who have recently been discharged from ACL rehabilitation.36–38

    300 m shuttle run

    In order to identify functional endurance limitations, a 300 m shuttle run will be included in the discharge protocol (see online supplementary appendix A6). This protocol will be completed using a weighted condition (weighted vest (normalised to soldier weight) and a simulated weapon) and a non-weighted condition. Subjects will be instructed to run facing forward as fast as they can between cones that are 25 m apart. This will be completed for 12 total repetitions for a total of 300 m. The time to completion will be recorded as a biomarker of functional endurance during the discharge testing.

    Carry test

    Carrying and lifting heavy objects is a common task in the military (see online supplementary appendix A7). The ability to quickly lift and carry heavy loads has been the focus of efforts to measure physical performance and predict injury in various studies.39–42 Many soldiers are required to lift and carry objects as part of their occupation (load ammunition, lift and carry heavy backpacks, place gear into vehicles, etc).

    Closed kinetic chain dorsiflexion range of motion

    Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will be measured with the subjects in a half kneeling position (see online supplementary appendix A8). This measurement will provide an estimate as to the mobility of the ankle when it is loaded with the body weight of the individual. The measurement will be taken bilaterally in order to assess the presence of any asymmetries. Reliability of a test similar to the ankle dorsiflexion measurement proposed that was performed in bilateral stance reported intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values of 0.92.43 This test was shown to be predictive of injury in a cohort of the US Army Rangers.21

    Self-report measures

    Self-perception on physical health and ability to return to full duty

    This consists of a total of nine questions, five of them modified from the 36-item Short Form survey. They ask questions related to the subject's perception of their physical health. The first five questions are related to the subject's perception of ability to return to full duty, need for additional healthcare for their current condition and function at the level that they feel is expected of them. The final four questions ask about their perception of general physical health.

    Oswestry Disability Index

    The Oswestry Disability Index (OSW) Questionnaire, originally described by Fairbank et al44 as a condition-specific measure of functional status for patients with LBP. The OSW is a 10-item scale with higher numbers indicating greater disability. We will use the modified version that replaces the sex life item with an employment/homemaking item due to poor compliance with the former.45 ,46 The OSW is widely used in research on non-operative management of patients with LBP.47 Previous research has found the modified OSW to have high levels of test-retest reliability among stable patients (ICC=0.90), good construct validity and responsiveness to change for patients with acute LBP, with a minimum clinically important difference of six points for patients with acute LBP receiving physical therapy.45

    Lower Extremity Functional Scale

    The Lower Extremity Functional Scale, originally described by Binkley et al,48 provides global assessment of function related specifically to the lower extremities. It is one self-report outcome measure that can capture adverse impact on function from multiple injuries or specific locations in the lower extremity. It consists of total 20 questions related to functional activities, each with a possible score ranging from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates that the activity cannot be performed at all and 4 indicates that the activity be performed with no limitations. The total maximum score is 80 points, indicating no limitations with any of the functional tasks. It has been shown to be valid, reliable and responsive to change in various patient populations and in different body regions in the lower extremity (ankle, knee and hip).48–50

    Global rating of change

    The global rating of change is a 15-point scale, which will be used as described by Jaeschke et al to measure the patient's perception of change in symptoms.51 The survey asks the patient to rate the degree of change in his or her condition from the beginning of treatment to the present. The midpoint of the scale is no change (0). Ratings from −1 to −7 represent varying degrees of a worsening of the patient's condition, while rating from +1 to +7 represent varying degrees of improvement.

    Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

    The PSQI is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that yields 7 component scores: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication and daytime dysfunction. There are five additional questions that are completed by a bed partner if there is one. Although it has not specifically looked at a population with lumbar spine and lower extremity disorders, psychometric properties of the PSQI demonstrated appropriate internal consistency,52 concurrent validity53 ,54 and discriminative validity53 ,54 in healthy and ill populations. This may have a significant role in affecting outcomes of patients with LBP as several preliminary studies have shown a correlation between chronic back pain and quality of sleep. Sleep deprivation is commonly seen in the active duty population with a high operational tempo.

    Patient Health Questionnaire

    The PHQ-9 will be assessed to help determine the impact of symptoms of depression55–58 on future injury risk. The PHQ-9 has demonstrated reliability and validity in different settings and among culturally diverse populations.57 ,59 The nine items on this questionnaire comes directly from signs and symptoms of major depression. Each item is rated from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), giving the scale a potential range of 0–27.56 A score ≥10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression.56

    Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire

    The FABQ60 will be used to measure patients' beliefs about how physical activity and work may affect their pain and perceived risk for re-injury. The FABQ contains two subscales: a 7-item work subscale and a 4-item physical activity subscale. Test-retest reliability of the FABQ subscales is high,60 ,61 and validity is supported by associations with disability and work loss in patients with acute and chronic LBP.62 ,63 Heightened fear-avoidance beliefs have been shown to be a risk factor for the development of chronic LBP following an acute episode.64 ,65 Other research suggests it may be appropriate for other body regions, specifically evaluating its use in lower extremity injuries within a physical therapy setting.66

    The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

    The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) is a self-report measure of fear of movement or re-injury.67 It consists of 17 statements about the subject's condition that they rate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree). The scores of items 4, 8, 12 and 16 are inverted and then a total score is calculated. The total score will range from 17 to 68 with higher scores indicating a higher degree of kinesiophobia (“an irrational and debilitating fear of physical movement and activity resulting from a feeling of vulnerability to painful injury or (re) injury”). The statements on the TSK relate to fear of pain or movement having an influence on disability, rather than the pain itself lending to the disability.68

    Pain Catastrophising Scale

    The PCS is a 13-item patient-report scale developed to measure the extent to which people catastrophise in response to pain.69 Each item is scored from 0 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘all the time’). The PCS is reported as a total score, with higher scores indicating greater catastrophising, and is composed of three subscales: Rumination (four items; eg, “When I am in pain, I keep thinking about how badly I want the pain to stop”), Magnification (three items; eg, “When I am in pain, I become afraid that the pain will get worse”) and Helplessness (six items; eg, “When I am in pain, I feel I can't go on”). The PCS has been shown to have high levels of internal consistency and construct validity.69 ,70 Pain catastrophising has also been found to play a role in the transition from acute to chronic back pain.64

    Patient satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction with the care received in physical therapy will be measured using a 10-item instrument that has been validated and found capable of distinguishing among three different dimensions of satisfaction (caring, information and treatment effectiveness) among patients with LBP attending primary care.71 It has been modified for this study to include lower extremity and thoracic spine.

    Injury surveillance

    An injury will be defined as an event or condition that results in restricted occupational and/or physical participation in unit activities. Injury data will be collected using three sources of injury tracking: monthly individual injury surveys completed using text messaging, healthcare utilisation data according to medical record reviews and healthcare utilisation according to the Military Health System Data Repository (MDR) database. Once the 1-year injury surveillance data have been collected, the specific injury risk algorithms will be developed. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that algorithms will require adjustment to match the injury risk of the specific soldier populations (sex and body region location of injury) tested. These procedures will allow for algorithms to be developed that assist in identifying service members at risk for musculoskeletal injuries. After the algorithms are developed, the future goal of this project is to provide both service members and the rehabilitation professionals who manage these patients, with this information. Specifically, in the future, service members and rehabilitation professionals will receive an individual report identifying their injury risk factors prior to discharge to full duty after physical rehabilitation.

    Healthcare utilisation

    Finally, healthcare utilisation data will be collected at the end of the year, and used to determine those injuries that required medical utilisation as well as the economic impact of those injuries. The data will be abstracted from the MDR, serves as the centralised data repository for all Defence Health Agency corporate healthcare data. The MDR is a worldwide network of more than 260 DoD healthcare facilities and a few non-DoD entities that feed into its database. This includes record of every single person-level interaction for healthcare where the Tricare Health Plan is the payer, both inpatient and outpatient, and either in a civilian network or DoD healthcare facility. Further details are available regarding how data are abstracted to capture injuries and associated healthcare resources.

    The goal of the MDR databases will be to determine which of these subjects sought healthcare for an injury in the 1-year period after data collection, and cross-reference this with patient self-report of injury that occurs with each monthly survey. This injury data (type, location, number of clinic visits, types of specialty clinic visits, imaging and associated medication) will allow us to determine how these predictive variables are associated with the incidence and severity of musculoskeletal injury. A similar approach was used in the predictive model for injuries in healthy soldiers within this same setting.21

    Discussion

    There are many efforts in place to mitigate injury by predicting future risk, although the concept is not without controversy.72 While some methodological flaws have been pointed out regarding the validity of movement screening for the predicting injury risk,72 we still believe the potential benefits are worth the risk. First of all, we agree that single tests alone may lack the required strength to be of value in predicting injury risk. Injuries are complex and many different factors can be contributory. Several studies looking at movement screens alone found very weak associations between performance and injury risk,73–76 making it difficult to recommend in isolation. However, the multifactorial nature of injuries highlights the need for multifactorial assessment. Predictive models that have looked at a variety of risk factors in combination have found more promising results. One study suggested that the FMS and Y-balance focused on different risk factors, and therefore should be used together with a thorough history of injury.77 Lisman et al observed that marine trainees who exhibited low performance on the FMS and low performance on the 3 mile run were 4.2 times more likely to sustain a musculoskeletal injury during basic training.78 The combined model significantly improved from the independent variables alone. Similarly, another multivariate model found that athletes who exhibited poor scores and asymmetries on the FMS and YBT-LQ had pain during testing, and a history of injury was 3.4 times more likely to sustain a non-contact lower extremity injury.79 A combined multivariate model has also been used in the military already, for predicting future risk of injury in healthy individuals.21

    WHO published criteria for appraising the value of screening programmes.80 The proposed criteria includes the following questions: (1) is the condition being screened an important and common health issue, (2) is there a detectable early stage, (3) will early treatment be of greater benefit than delayed treatment and (4) is there a suitable assessment to detect the condition in the early stage?

    Certainly numbers 1 and 3 are well justified in this population. Numbers 2 and 4 align with the purpose and aims of the proposed study. History of a prior injury is a very strong predictor for future injury, and in this particular cohort 100% of the subjects have this variable. Therefore, they already are at risk for injury. However, this relationship is temporal, and as time passes, the risk decreases. For example, re-injury rates for ankle sprains in athletes can be as high as 50% within the first 6 months of returning to sport, but after about 2 years, revert to the same level of risk as those without a history of prior injury.81 Similar associations have been reported for ACL injuries.82 Capturing them immediately after being cleared to return to work from an injury allows us to assess this relationship at what is likely the most critical point.

    Identification of an injury is critical to deriving accurate injury prediction models. However, surveillance to detect injuries can be a challenge. For athletes on a collegiate or professional team, these injuries are likely monitored with much greater detail than in other populations. The injury documentation and medical care is likely to stay relatively confined to a smaller system and/or group of medical providers. In the military, there is a lot more heterogeneity as military service members have many different occupations, and are often relocated to different geographical assignments. This adds to the challenge of accurately identifying an injury occurrence. Fortunately, we have employed multiple approaches to capture these data. First, patients will be sent a brief injury survey text message every month via Short Message Service to their mobile phone. This survey can be answered quickly and directly from their cellular phone, and all responses are logged in an online database (Mosio, Seattle, Washington, USA). Second, every medical visit with the healthcare system, regardless of location worldwide, is logged and tracked by the MDR. This allows for data capture and identification of an injury, based on billing and diagnosis International Classification of Diagnosis, 10th edition. Stratification of injuries, based on management costs and/or type of injury are also possible.

    We feel that our approach is unique and different in many ways. We are the first to look at injury prediction models exclusively in patients with a prior injury. We are using a multivariate approach, including many different physical and sociodemographic self-report variables. Finally, our method for identifying injuries will provide additional information beyond the traditional dichotomous nature of injury occurrences common in most studies to date.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank MAJ Scott Carow and MAJ Darren Hearn, as well Drs Matthew Hartshorne, Danielle Langness, Laurel Proulx and Rachel Mayhew for their assistance in developing the plan for implementation of the performance assessments.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Lincoln AE,
      2. Smith GS,
      3. Amoroso PJ, et al
      . The natural history and risk factors of musculoskeletal conditions resulting in disability among US Army personnel. Work 2002;18:99–113.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Alison S
      . TB MED 592: prevention and control of musculoskeletal injury associated with physical training. Washington DC: Department of the Army, 2006.
    3. ↵
      1. Songer TJ,
      2. LaPorte RE
      . Disabilities due to injury in the military. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:33–40. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00107-0
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Jones BH,
      2. Hansen BC
      . An armed forces epidemiological board evaluation of injuries in the military. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:14–25. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00170-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Jones BH,
      2. Perrotta DM,
      3. Canham-Chervak ML, et al
      . Injuries in the military: a review and commentary focused on prevention. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:71–84. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00169-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Musculoskeletal Conditions Per M2 Database Analysis for FY 2007. Military Health System Management and Reporting Tool (M2) Database, 2008 (accessed 5 Jun 2008).
    7. ↵
      1. Henderson NE,
      2. Knapik JJ,
      3. Shaffer SW, et al
      . Injuries and injury risk factors among men and women in U.S. Army Combat Medic Advanced individual training. Mil Med 2000;165:647–52.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Rosendal L,
      2. Langberg H,
      3. Skov-Jensen A, et al
      . Incidence of injury and physical performance adaptations during military training. Clin J Sport Med 2003;13:157–63. doi:10.1097/00042752-200305000-00006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Jones BH,
      2. Knapik JJ
      . Physical training and exercise-related injuries. Surveillance, research and injury prevention in military populations. Sports Med 1999;27:111–25. doi:10.2165/00007256-199927020-00004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Almeida SA,
      2. Williams KM,
      3. Shaffer RA, et al
      . Epidemiological patterns of musculoskeletal injuries and physical training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31:1176–82. doi:10.1097/00005768-199908000-00015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Rudzki SJ
      . Injuries in Australian Army recruits. Part II: location and cause of injuries seen in recruits. Mil Med 1997;162:477–80.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Jones BH,
      2. Cowan DN,
      3. Tomlison JP, et al
      . Epidemiology of injuries associated with physical training among young men in the army. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25:197–203. doi:10.1249/00005768-199302000-00006
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Jones BH,
      2. Thacker SB,
      3. Gilchrist J, et al
      . Prevention of lower extremity stress fractures in athletes and soldiers: a systematic review. Epidemiol Rev 2002;24:228–47. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxf011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Knapik JJ,
      2. Darakjy S,
      3. Swedler D, et al
      . Parachute ankle brace and extrinsic injury risk factors during parachuting. Aviat Space Environ Med 2008;79:408–15. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2218.2008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Reinking MF
      . Exercise-related leg pain in female collegiate athletes: the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:1500–7. doi:10.1177/0363546506287298
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Rauh MJ,
      2. Margherita AJ,
      3. Rice SG, et al
      . High school cross country running injuries: a longitudinal study. Clin J Sport Med 2000;10:110–16. doi:10.1097/00042752-200004000-00005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Wilkinson DM,
      2. Blacker SD,
      3. Richmond VL, et al
      . Injuries and injury risk factors among British army infantry soldiers during predeployment training. Inj Prev 2011;17:381–7. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.028233
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      1. Malliaropoulos N,
      2. Ntessalen M,
      3. Papacostas E, et al
      . Reinjury after acute lateral ankle sprains in elite track and field athletes. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:1755–61. doi:10.1177/0363546509338107
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Barber-Westin SD,
      2. Noyes FR
      . Objective criteria for return to athletics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent reinjury rates: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed 2011;39:100–10. doi:10.3810/psm.2011.09.1926
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Heiderscheit BC,
      2. Sherry MA,
      3. Silder A, et al
      . Hamstring strain injuries: recommendations for diagnosis, rehabilitation, and injury prevention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40:67–81. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3047
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Teyhen DS,
      2. Shaffer SW,
      3. Butler RJ, et al
      . What risk factors are associated with musculoskeletal injury in US Army Rangers? A prospective prognostic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:2948–58. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4342-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Trone DW,
      2. Cipriani DJ,
      3. Raman R, et al
      . The association of self-reported measures with poor training outcomes among male and female U.S. Navy recruits. Mil Med 2013;178:43–9. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00271
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Hewett TE,
      2. Di Stasi SL,
      3. Myer GD
      . Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:216–24. doi:10.1177/0363546512459638
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Paterno MV,
      2. Schmitt LC,
      3. Ford KR, et al
      . Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1968–78. doi:10.1177/0363546510376053
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Bonazza NA,
      2. Smuin D,
      3. Onks CA, et al
      . Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. Published Online First: 29 April 2016. doi:10.1177/0363546516641937 doi:10.1177/0363546516641937
    26. ↵
      1. George SZ,
      2. Childs JD,
      3. Teyhen DS, et al
      . Brief psychosocial education, not core stabilization, reduced incidence of low back pain: results from the Prevention of Low Back Pain in the Military (POLM) cluster randomized trial. BMC Med 2011;9:128. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-128
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Concato J,
      2. Feinstein AR,
      3. Holford TR
      . The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:201–10. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-3-199302010-00009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Cook G,
      2. Burton L,
      3. Hoogenboom B
      . Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function—part 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006;1:132–9.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Cook G,
      2. Burton L,
      3. Hoogenboom B
      . Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function—part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006;1:62–72.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Cook G,
      2. Burton L,
      3. Kiesel K
      . Movement: functional movement systems: screening, assessment, and corrective strategies. Santa Cruz, CA: On Target Publications, 2010.
    31. ↵
      1. Plisky PJ,
      2. Gorman PP,
      3. Butler RJ, et al
      . The reliability of an instrumented device for measuring components of the star excursion balance test. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2009;4:92.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Plisky PJ,
      2. Rauh MJ,
      3. Kaminski TW, et al
      . Star Excursion Balance Test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:911–19. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2244
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Butler RJ,
      2. Lehr ME,
      3. Fink ML, et al
      . Dynamic balance performance and noncontact lower extremity injury in college football players: an initial study. Sports Health 2013;5:417–22. doi:10.1177/1941738113498703
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. de Noronha M,
      2. França LC,
      3. Haupenthal A, et al
      . Intrinsic predictive factors for ankle sprain in active university students: a prospective study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013;23:541–7. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01434.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Westrick RB,
      2. Miller JM,
      3. Carow SD, et al
      . Exploration of the y-balance test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2012;7:139–47.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Xergia SA,
      2. Pappas E,
      3. Zampeli F, et al
      . Asymmetries in functional hop tests, lower extremity kinematics, and isokinetic strength persist 6 to 9 months following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43:154–62. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.3967
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Myer GD,
      2. Schmitt LC,
      3. Brent JL, et al
      . Utilization of modified NFL combine testing to identify functional deficits in athletes following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41:377–87. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3547
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Munro AG,
      2. Herrington LC
      . Between-session reliability of four hop tests and the agility t-test. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25:1470–7. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d83335
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Kuijer PPF,
      2. Verbeek JH,
      3. Visser B, et al
      . An evidence-based multidisciplinary practice guideline to reduce the workload due to lifting for preventing work-related low back pain. Ann Occup Environ Med 2014;26:16. doi:10.1186/2052-4374-26-16
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Szivak TK,
      2. Kraemer WJ,
      3. Nindl BC, et al
      . Relationships of physical performance tests to military-relevant tasks in women. US Army Med Dep J 2014;9:20–6.
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Taanila HP,
      2. Suni JH,
      3. Pihlajamäki HK, et al
      . Predictors of low back pain in physically active conscripts with special emphasis on muscular fitness. Spine J 2012;12:737–48. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.01.006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Savage RJ,
      2. Best SA,
      3. Carstairs GL, et al
      . On the relationship between discrete and repetitive lifting performance in military tasks. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:767–73. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a364a6
      OpenUrl
    43. ↵
      1. Cliborne AV,
      2. Wainner RS,
      3. Rhon DI, et al
      . Clinical hip tests and a functional squat test in patients with knee osteoarthritis: reliability, prevalence of positive test findings, and short-term response to hip mobilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2004;34:676–85. doi:10.2519/jospt.2004.34.11.676
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. Fairbank JC,
      2. Couper J,
      3. Davies JB, et al
      . The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271–3.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Fritz JM,
      2. Irrgang JJ
      . A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 2001;81:776–88.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      1. Jensen MP,
      2. Turner JA,
      3. Romano JM
      . What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement? Pain 1994;58:387–92. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90133-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Deyo RA,
      2. Battie M,
      3. Beurskens AJHM, et al
      . Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 1998;23:2003–13. doi:10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Binkley JM,
      2. Stratford PW,
      3. Lott SA, et al
      . The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 1999;79:371–83.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      1. Alcock GK,
      2. Werstine MS,
      3. Robbins SM, et al
      . Longitudinal changes in the lower extremity functional scale after anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive surgery. Clin J Sport Med 2012;22:234–9. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e31824cb53d
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Williams VJ,
      2. Piva SR,
      3. Irrgang JJ, et al
      . Comparison of reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported clinical outcome measures in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42:716–23. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.4038
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Jaeschke R,
      2. Singer J,
      3. Guyatt GH
      . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Buysse DJ,
      2. Reynolds CF III.,
      3. Monk TH, et al
      . The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 1989;28:193–213. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Carpenter JS,
      2. Andrykowski MA
      . Psychometric evaluation of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. J Psychosom Res 1998;45:5–13. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00298-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      1. Backhaus J,
      2. Junghanns K,
      3. Broocks A, et al
      . Test-retest reliability and validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in primary insomnia. J Psychosom Res 2002;53:737–40. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00330-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Dworkin RH,
      2. Turk DC,
      3. Wyrwich KW, et al
      . Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–21. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Kroenke K,
      2. Spitzer RL,
      3. Williams JBW
      . The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:606–13. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. Huang FY,
      2. Chung H,
      3. Kroenke K, et al
      . Using the patient health questionnaire-9 to measure depression among racially and ethnically diverse primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:547–52. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00409.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Lee PW,
      2. Schulberg HC,
      3. Raue PJ, et al
      . Concordance between the PHQ-9 and the HSCL-20 in depressed primary care patients. J Affect Disord 2007;99:139–45. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2006.09.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      1. Duffy FF,
      2. Chung H,
      3. Trivedi M, et al
      . Systematic use of patient-rated depression severity monitoring: is it helpful and feasible in clinical psychiatry? Psychiatr Serv 2008;59:1148–54. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.59.10.1148
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Waddell G,
      2. Newton M,
      3. Henderson I, et al
      . A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52:157–68. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Jacob T,
      2. Baras M,
      3. Zeev A, et al
      . Low back pain: reliability of a set of pain measurement tools. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:735–42. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.22623
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Fritz JM,
      2. George SZ,
      3. Delitto A
      . The role of fear-avoidance beliefs in acute low back pain: relationships with current and future disability and work status. Pain 2001;94:7–15. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00333-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. Crombez G,
      2. Vlaeyen JW,
      3. Heuts PH, et al
      . Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 1999;80:329–39. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00229-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Buer N,
      2. Linton SJ
      . Fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing: occurrence and risk factor in back pain and ADL in the general population. Pain 2002;99:485–91. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00265-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. ↵
      1. Fritz JM,
      2. George SZ
      . Identifying psychosocial variables in patients with acute work-related low back pain: the importance of fear-avoidance beliefs. Phys Ther 2002;82:973–83.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    66. ↵
      1. George SZ,
      2. Stryker SE
      . Fear-avoidance beliefs and clinical outcomes for patients seeking outpatient physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41:249–59. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3488
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Vlaeyen JW,
      2. Kole-Snijders AM,
      3. Boeren RG, et al
      . Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain 1995;62:363–72. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)00279-N
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. ↵
      1. Cleland JA,
      2. Fritz JM,
      3. Childs JD
      . Psychometric properties of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in patients with neck pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008;87:109–17. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31815b61f1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Osman A,
      2. Barrios FX,
      3. Kopper BA, et al
      . Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. J Behav Med 1997;20:589–605. doi:10.1023/A:1025570508954
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Osman A,
      2. Barrios FX,
      3. Gutierrez PM, et al
      . The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med 2000;23:351–65. doi:10.1023/A:1005548801037
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    71. ↵
      1. Cherkin D,
      2. Deyo RA,
      3. Berg AO
      . Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low-back pain II. Impact on patients. Spine 1991;16:1173–8. doi:10.1097/00007632-199110000-00008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    72. ↵
      1. Bahr R
      . Why screening tests to predict injury do not work-and probably never will…: a critical review. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:776–80. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096256
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      1. McGill S,
      2. Frost D,
      3. Lam T, et al
      . Can fitness and movement quality prevent back injury in elite task force police officers? A 5-year longitudinal study. Ergonomics 2015;58:1682–9. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1035760
      OpenUrl
    74. ↵
      1. Knapik JJ,
      2. Cosio-Lima LM,
      3. Reynolds KL, et al
      . Efficacy of functional movement screening for predicting injuries in coast guard cadets. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29:1157–62. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000704
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Bushman TT,
      2. Grier TL,
      3. Canham-Chervak M, et al
      . The functional movement screen and injury risk: association and predictive value in active men. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:297–304. doi:10.1177/0363546515614815
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Kodesh E,
      2. Shargal E,
      3. Kislev-Cohen R, et al
      . Examination of the effectiveness of predictors for musculoskeletal injuries in female soldiers. J Sports Sci Med 2015;14:515–21.
      OpenUrl
    77. ↵
      1. de la Motte SJ,
      2. Lisman P,
      3. Sabatino M, et al
      . The relationship between functional movement, balance deficits, and previous injury history in deploying marine warfighters. J Strength Cond Res 2016;30:1619–25. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000850
      OpenUrl
    78. ↵
      1. Lisman P,
      2. O'Connor FG,
      3. Deuster PA, et al
      . Functional movement screen and aerobic fitness predict injuries in military training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:636–43. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827a1c4c
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    79. ↵
      1. Lehr ME,
      2. Plisky PJ,
      3. Butler RJ, et al
      . Field-expedient screening and injury risk algorithm categories as predictors of noncontact lower extremity injury. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013;23:e225–32. doi:10.1111/sms.12062
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Wilson J,
      2. Jungner G
      . Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization Public Health Paper; 1968.
    81. ↵
      1. Verhagen EALM,
      2. Bay K
      . Optimising ankle sprain prevention: a critical review and practical appraisal of the literature. Br J Sports Med 2010;44:1082–8. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.076406
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Kyritsis P,
      2. Bahr R,
      3. Landreau P, et al
      . Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:946–51. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors We are thankful for the contribution of MAJ Scott Carow, MAJ Darren Hearn and Drs Matt Hartsorne, Danielle Langness, Rachel Mayhew, Laurel Proulx and Katie Dry in helping with training, establishing training procedures and assistance with setting up the data collection process.

    • Funding This research was funded by the Department of Defence Military Operational Medicine Research Program under programme number (W81XWH-13-MOMJPC5-IPPEHA).

    • Disclaimer This research was supported by the Department of Defence Military Operational Medicine Research Program under programme number (W81XWH-13-MOMJPC5-IPPEHA). The view(s) expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Brooke Army Medical Center, the US Army Medical Department, the US Army Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of the Army, Department of Defence or the US Government.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval US Army Western Region IRB.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.