On this page you can access copies of research studies that have investigated the Activate programme.
Effects of Activate on injury risk
Research studies that have assessed the effects of using Activate can be found here:
Background: Exercise programmes aimed at reducing injury have been shown to be efficacious for some non-collision sports, but evidence in adult men's collision sports such as rugby union is lacking.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a movement control injury prevention exercise programme for reducing match injuries in adult men's community rugby union players.
Methods: 856 clubs were invited to participate in this prospective cluster randomised (single-blind) controlled trial where clubs were the unit of randomisation. 81 volunteered and were randomly assigned (intervention/control). A 42-week exercise programme was followed throughout the season. The control programme reflected 'normal practice' exercises, whereas the intervention focused on proprioception, balance, cutting, landing and resistance exercises.Outcome measures were match injury incidence and burden for: (1) all ≥8 days time-loss injuries and (2) targeted (lower limb, shoulder, head and neck, excluding fractures and lacerations) ≥8 days time-loss injuries.
Results: Poisson regression identified no clear effects on overall injury outcomes. A likely beneficial difference in targeted injury incidence (rate ratio (RR), 90% CI=0.6, 0.4 to 1.0) was identified, with a 40% reduction in lower-limb incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.6, 0.4 to 1.0) and a 60% reduction in concussion incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.7) in the intervention group. Comparison between arms for clubs with highest compliance (≥median compliance) demonstrated very likely beneficial 60% reductions in targeted injury incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.8) and targeted injury burden (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.7).
Conclusions: The movement control injury prevention programme resulted in likely beneficial reductions in lower-limb injuries and concussion. Higher intervention compliance was associated with reduced targeted injury incidence and burden.
Background: Injury risk in youth rugby has received much attention, highlighting the importance of establishing evidence-based injury reduction strategies.
Aim: To determine the efficacy of a movement control exercise programme in reducing injuries in youth rugby players and to investigate the effect of programme dose on injury measures.
Methods: In a cluster-randomised controlled trial, 40 independent schools (118 teams, 3188 players aged 14-18 years) were allocated to receive either the intervention or a reference programme, both of which were to be delivered by school coaches. The intervention comprised balance training, whole-body resistance training, plyometric training, and controlled rehearsal of landing and cutting manoeuvres. Time-loss (>24 hours) injuries arising from school rugby matches were recorded by coaches and medical staff.
Results: 441 time-loss match injuries (intervention, 233; control, 208) were reported across 15 938 match exposure-hours (intervention, 9083; control, 6855). Intention-to-treat results indicated unclear effects of trial arm on overall match injury incidence (rate ratio (RR)=0.85, 90% confidence limits 0.61 to 1.17), although clear reductions were evident in the intervention arm for concussion incidence (RR=0.71, 0.48 to 1.05). When trial arm comparisons were limited to teams who had completed three or more weekly programme sessions on average, clear reductions in overall match injury incidence (RR=0.28, 0.14 to 0.51) and concussion incidence (RR=0.41, 0.17 to 0.99) were noted in the intervention group.
Conclusion: A preventive movement control exercise programme can reduce match injury outcomes, including concussion, in schoolboy rugby players when compared with a standardised control exercise programme, although to realise the greatest effects players should complete the programme at least three times per week.
Objective: The efficacious Activate injury prevention exercise programme has been shown to prevent injuries in English schoolboy rugby union. There is now a need to assess the implementation and effectiveness of Activate in the applie setting.
Methods: This quasi-experimental study used a 24-hour time-loss injury definition to calculate incidence (/1000 hours) and burden (days lost/1000 hours) for individuals whose teams adopted Activate (used Activate during season) versus non-adopters. The dose-response relationship of varying levels of Activate adherence (median Activate sessions per week) was also assessed. Player-level rugby exposure, sessional Activate adoption and injury reports were recorded by school gatekeepers. Rate ratios (RR), adjusted by cluster (team), were calculated using backwards stepwise Poisson regression to compare rates between adoption and adherence groups.
Results: Individuals in teams adopting Activate had a 23% lower match injury incidence (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07), 59% lower training injury incidence (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.97) and 26% lower match injury burden (95% CI 0.46 to 1.20) than individuals on non-adopting teams. Individuals with high Activate adherence (≥3 sessions per week) had a 67% lower training injury incidence (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91) and a 32% lower match injury incidence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92) than individuals with low adherence (<1 session per week). While 65% of teams adopted Activate during the season, only one team used Activate three times per week, using whole phases and programme progressions.
Conclusion: Activate is effective at preventing injury in English schoolboy rugby. Attention should focus on factors influencing programme uptake and implementation, ensuring Activate can have maximal benefit.
Implementing Activate
Research studies that have assessed how Activate is being implemented by coaches and how implementation can be improved:
The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) is a behaviour change model showing promise in positively changing youth sport coaches’ injury prevention behaviours. This study incorporated the HAPA model into coach training workshops for Activate, an efficacious rugby injury prevention programme. Primary aims were to investigate the effect of the workshop on schoolboy rugby union coaches’ (1) perceptions towards injury risk and prevention, (2) Activate adoption and adherence. Secondary aims were to (3) assess the differences in post-season HAPA constructs between workshop attendees and non-attendees, (4) explore associations between HAPA constructs and Activate adherence. In the pre-season, all participants (n = 76) completed a baseline survey, with 41 coaches electing to attend a workshop. Participants completed a post-season survey assessing HAPA constructs and Activate adoption and adherence throughout the season. The workshop did not affect coach perceptions of injury risk and prevention. Attendees had significantly greater rates of Activate adoption (95% vs. 54% χ2 = 17.42, p < 0.01) and adherence (median = 2 sessions vs. ≤1 session per week; z = 3.45, p = 0.03) than non-attendees. At post-season, attendees had significantly greater task self-efficacy (z = −3.46, p < 0.05) and intention (z = −4.33, p < 0.05) to use Activate. These results support the delivery of coach workshops that utilise a behaviour change model to maximise programme implementation.
Objectives The implementation of the Activate injury prevention exercise programme has not been assessed in an applied context. This study aimed to (1) describe the knowledge and perceptions of school rugby coaches and players towards injury risk, prevention and Activate and (2) evaluate Activate implementation in schoolboy rugby using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance framework.
Methods Bespoke electronic surveys were administered to coaches (including support staff) and players at participating English schools (2018–2020). Most questions and statements were answered using a 7-point Likert scale. At baseline, participants detailed their Activate awareness and perceptions of injury risk and prevention in schoolboy rugby. At postseason, participants reported Activate use throughout the study and their perceptions towards the programme.
Results At baseline, significant differences existed between coaches (n=106) and players (n=571) in Activate awareness (75% and 13% respectively; χ2=173.5, p<0.001). Coaches perceived rugby had a significantly greater injury risk than players, while holding more positive perceptions towards injury prevention. At postseason, coaches reported greater Activate adoption compared with players (76% and 18% respectively; χ2=41.8, p<0.001); 45% of players were unaware if they used the programme. Median session adherence was twice weekly, with a median duration of 10–15 min. This suggests Activate was not implemented as intended, with recommendations of three 20 min sessions per week. Both groups identified common barriers to implementation, such as lack of time and inclusion of a ball.
Conclusion Coaches are instrumental in the decision to implement Activate. Targeting behavioural change in these individuals is likely to have the greatest impact on intervention uptake.
The rugby-specific Activate injury prevention exercise programme was deemed efficacious in a randomised controlled trial and subsequently disseminated nationwide by the Rugby Football Union (English rugby union governing body) in 2017. However, no assessment has been made of the factors influencing Activate implementation in an applied setting. Consequently, this study sought to assess the barriers and facilitators to coaches implementing Activate in English schoolboy rugby. This qualitative study adopted a framework approach, using four a-priori themes influencing injury prevention implementation: awareness, motivational determinants, volitional determinants and socio-environmental factors. A purposive sample of schoolboy rugby coaches were recruited from schools nationwide, participating in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews (n = 10). Transcripts were thematically coded. Participants had positive perceptions towards Activate, although only six adopted the programme. Participants reported that players were generally unaware of the programme, with some suggesting this was not an issue as coaches made the decision to adopt Activate. Participants focused heavily upon the use of resources to develop coaches’ awareness, knowledge and confidence. No participant implemented Activate as initially designed, influenced by time and engagement, instead incorporating it within training drills rather than as a block at the beginning of the session. Participants adapted the programme to make it suitable for multiple sports. Some participants reported asking players to deliver Activate, despite their lack of awareness, raising concerns around implementation. Participants heavily adapted Activate delivery to suit their contexts. How this affects the effectiveness of Activate to reduce injury risk is unknown and should be investigated. Player-specific dissemination strategies should be considered if these individuals act as delivery-agents.