Most modifiable risk factors for hamstring muscle injury in women’s elite football are extrinsic and associated with the club, the team, and the coaching staff and not the players themselves: the UEFA Women’s Elite Club Injury Study

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To describe the perceived importance of suggested hamstring injury risk factors according to chief medical officers (CMOs) of European women’s professional football clubs. A secondary objective was to compare if these perceptions differed between teams with a lower-than-average and higher-than-average hamstring injury burden. Methods The CMOs of eleven European professional women’s football clubs were initially asked to suggest modifiable risk factors for hamstring injury. These risk factors were rated in according with their perceived importance on a 5-graded Likert scale. Participating teams were divided in two groups depending on their hamstring injury burden during the 2020/21 season. The LOW group consisted of six teams that had a lower-than-average hamstring injury burden. The HIGH group consisted of five teams that had a higher-than-average hamstring injury burden. Results Twenty-one risk factors were suggested, most of which were extrinsic in nature, hence associated with the coaching staff, the team or the club organization rather than with the players themselves. The risk factors with the highest average importance were: “lack of communication between medical staff and coaching staff” and “load on players” (each with a weighted average of 3.9), followed by “lack of regular exposure to high-speed football actions during training” and “playing matches 2–3 times a week” (weighted average of 3.8 and 3.7). Differently from the LOW group, the HIGH group perceived the coaching factors (style of coach leadership, training/exercise surveillance by coaching staff) as more important. Conclusion In accordance to the eleven CMOs recruited in this study, most risk factors for hamstring injuries are extrinsic in nature and associated with the club, the team, and the coaching staff, and not the players themselves. Level of evidence Level III.