Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan, GIH

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Running shoes, pronation, and injuries: do beliefs of injury risk factors among running shoe salespersons and physiotherapy students align with current aetiology frameworks?
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Department of Sport and Health Sciences. Karolinska institutet, Sweden.
Aarhus University, Denmark.
University of Montana, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Footwear Science, ISSN 1942-4280, E-ISSN 1942-4299, Vol. 12, no 2, p. 101-111Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Current frameworks on running-related injury (RRI) aetiology emphasise the relation between exposure to training load, internal tissue loads, and tissue capacity; with tissue load exceeding its capacity being the key biological mechanism in the development of RRI. Despite this, runners and clinicians commonly attribute improper prescription of running shoes as a primary causative factor for RRI. A likely contributor to this belief may be the marketing produced by the footwear industry, which often is not supported by scientific evidence. The purpose of this study was to examine the beliefs of running shoe salespersons and physiotherapy students regarding the influence of running shoes and foot pronation on RRI. A questionnaire was distributed to 275 physiotherapy students at three different Swedish universities and to 219 running shoe salespersons of 35 different running shoe stores. A total of 270 students and 89 salespersons responded to the questionnaire. Salespersons rated their knowledge of running shoes (r = ?0.56), foot pronation (r = ?0.55) and RRI (r = ?0.34) higher than students did (p < .001). A minority of students (32.4%) and salespersons (14.1%) reported training errors to be the main contributing cause of RRI. A majority of salespersons (52.5%), but not students (15.3%), reported more expensive shoes to be better at preventing RRI than cheaper shoes. Most salespersons (51.9%), but not students (39.0%), would recommend uninjured runners to change their current running shoe type despite runners being satisfied with their current shoes. Despite salespersons being more confident in their knowledge of running shoes and foot pronation with relation to RRI development than students, both populations hold beliefs that do not align well with current frameworks on RRI aetiology.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2020. Vol. 12, no 2, p. 101-111
National Category
Sport and Fitness Sciences
Research subject
Medicine/Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:gih:diva-6193DOI: 10.1080/19424280.2020.1734869ISI: 000538026600004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:gih-6193DiVA, id: diva2:1431782
Available from: 2020-05-25 Created: 2020-05-25 Last updated: 2020-06-25Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Department of Sport and Health Sciences
In the same journal
Footwear Science
Sport and Fitness Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 60 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf