Presentation Title

The Difference Between Rehabilitation Under-adherence Rates and Injury Type

Faculty Mentor

Megan Granquist

Start Date

17-11-2018 12:30 PM

End Date

17-11-2018 2:30 PM

Location

HARBESON 39

Session

POSTER 2

Type of Presentation

Poster

Subject Area

health_nutrition_clinical_science

Abstract

Context: In today’s rehabilitation clinics, patient non-adherence is a growing concern. In community rehabilitation clinics, adherence ranges from 40%-91% (Brewer, 1998). In collegiate athletics, 44 Division II schools reported that 63% of their athletes were non-adherent to their rehabilitation protocols (Byerly et al., 1994). Under-adherence may differ between injury type, specifically upper and lower extremity.

Objective: To explore the difference between under-adherence and type of injury, specifically between upper or lower extremity injuries.

Setting: NCAA Division III institution in Southern California.

Data Collection: Data was IRB-approved archival data from Dr. Granquist.

Participants: A total of 20 participants (8 males, 11 females, 1 not specified) completed the survey measures. The participants were former and current collegiate athletes.

Variables: The independent variable in this study is injury type, specifically upper and lower extremity. The dependent variable is adherence, specifically under-adherence, which was measured using the 16-item Rehabilitation Adherence Measure for Athletic Training (RAdMAT; Granquist, Gill & Appaneal, 2010).

Results: There were 7 upper extremity injuries (RAdMAT mean = 55.14) and 13 lower extremity injuries (RAdMAT mean = 56.77). The results indicate no statistically significant difference in under-adherence between injury type [t= -.614 (18), p= .605]. Follow-up analysis indicates no statistically significant difference between males (RAdMAT mean = 57.75) and females (RAdMAT mean = 54.64) [t = 1.214 (17), p = .241].

Conclusions: While participants with lower extremity injuries had better adherence, and males had better adherence, there are no statistically significant differences. This could be due to the limited number of participants. There may also be other factors influencing adherence rates, including stress and rehabilitation environment (Brewer, Andersen & VanRaalte, 2002). Future studies should include more participants and examine other factors that may related to adherence.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 17th, 12:30 PM Nov 17th, 2:30 PM

The Difference Between Rehabilitation Under-adherence Rates and Injury Type

HARBESON 39

Context: In today’s rehabilitation clinics, patient non-adherence is a growing concern. In community rehabilitation clinics, adherence ranges from 40%-91% (Brewer, 1998). In collegiate athletics, 44 Division II schools reported that 63% of their athletes were non-adherent to their rehabilitation protocols (Byerly et al., 1994). Under-adherence may differ between injury type, specifically upper and lower extremity.

Objective: To explore the difference between under-adherence and type of injury, specifically between upper or lower extremity injuries.

Setting: NCAA Division III institution in Southern California.

Data Collection: Data was IRB-approved archival data from Dr. Granquist.

Participants: A total of 20 participants (8 males, 11 females, 1 not specified) completed the survey measures. The participants were former and current collegiate athletes.

Variables: The independent variable in this study is injury type, specifically upper and lower extremity. The dependent variable is adherence, specifically under-adherence, which was measured using the 16-item Rehabilitation Adherence Measure for Athletic Training (RAdMAT; Granquist, Gill & Appaneal, 2010).

Results: There were 7 upper extremity injuries (RAdMAT mean = 55.14) and 13 lower extremity injuries (RAdMAT mean = 56.77). The results indicate no statistically significant difference in under-adherence between injury type [t= -.614 (18), p= .605]. Follow-up analysis indicates no statistically significant difference between males (RAdMAT mean = 57.75) and females (RAdMAT mean = 54.64) [t = 1.214 (17), p = .241].

Conclusions: While participants with lower extremity injuries had better adherence, and males had better adherence, there are no statistically significant differences. This could be due to the limited number of participants. There may also be other factors influencing adherence rates, including stress and rehabilitation environment (Brewer, Andersen & VanRaalte, 2002). Future studies should include more participants and examine other factors that may related to adherence.