4.6 Article

Golf injuries - common and potentially avoidable

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 163-170

Publisher

SPORTS MEDICINE AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1016/S1440-2440(05)80007-6

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Injuries sustained during golf rarely receive the recognition given to injuries from sports perceived as more violent or strenuous. However, golfing injuries are believed to occur frequently. The aim of this study was to explore the injury profile of female golfers, including treatment sought and the impact of the injury on performance and participation. Forty-one team captains were given questionnaires to distribute to their players. A total of 522 golfers participating in the Victorian Women's Pennant Competition in Victoria, Australia, from both the Metropolitan and Country competitions, completed the study. Over one-third (35.2%) of the golfers reported having sustained a golfing injury within the previous 12 months, with the lower back being the most commonly injured body region. Strains were the most frequent type of injury (67.9%). Of the 184 injuries reported, 154 sought treatment from a health professional. Physiotherapists were the most common health professional consulted. Performance was affected in 78.9% of cases, with 69.7% of the injured golfers missing games or practice sessions due to injury. Golfing injuries appear common and have a substantial impact upon the injured golfer. As lower back strains are the most common injury, strategies such as performing an appropriate warm-up could be investigated to determine the possible injury prevention benefits for golfers. This study has also highlighted that the majority of treatments are from allied health professionals, suggesting that a complete epidemiological description of golf injuries requires information from broader settings than general practice clinics and hospitals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available