Introduction: A critical step in understanding and preventing running-related injuries (RRIs) is appropriately defining RRIs. Current definitions of RRIs may not represent the full process of injury development, failing to capture lower levels of injury that many athletes continue to train through. Understanding runners’ description and management of the injury development process may allow for a more appropriate examination of all levels of injury. This study aimed to examine recreational runners’ description and management of the injury development process. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Seven semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 18) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were reflexively thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding. Multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results: Runners describe injury on a nine-level continuum, ranging from injury-free to career-ending injury. There are lower and higher levels of injury. Each level of injury is described across four categories of descriptors; physical description, outcome (effect on running and daily life), psychological description, and management. Conclusion: The Running Injury Continuum is a tool that can be used for injury surveillance (for healthcare professionals and researchers) and for research investigating RRI risk factors. Healthcare professionals, researchers and coaches must ensure they monitor the development of all levels of RRIs, across all categories of descriptors. Runners need to be educated regarding appropriate self-management strategies for lower level injuries, with access to evidence-based information being a critical management tool.

Purpose: Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results: Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners’ adoption of injury focused technologies. Conclusions: Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.

Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running‐related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub‐descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two‐approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow‐up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.

Understanding injury severity is essential to inform injury prevention practice. The aims of this scoping review were to investigate how running‐related injury (RRI) severity is measured, compare how it differs across studies, and examine whether it influences study outcomes (i.e., injury rates and risk factor identification). This scoping review was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework. A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and December 2023, investigated RRIs in adult running populations, and included a measure of injury severity. Results were extracted and collated. Sixty‐six studies were included. Two predominant primary criteria are used to define injury severity: the extent of the effect on running and/or the extent of the physical description. When secondary definition criteria are considered, 13 variations of injury severity measurement are used. Two approaches are used to grade injury severity: a categorization approach or a continuous numerical scale. Overall, the measurement of RRI severity is relatively inconsistent across studies. Less than half of studies report incidence rates per level of injury severity, while none report specific risk factors across levels, making it difficult to determine if the approach to measuring injury severity influences these study outcomes. This lack of information is possibly contributing to inconsistent rates of RRIs reported, and the lack of clarity on risk factors.

Purpose: Continuous and long-term prospective monitoring of athletes in natural training environments is essential to provide further clarity on the risk factors for running-related injuries. However, participant recruitment and retention can be problematic. This study aimed to identify factors for facilitating the recruitment and retention of recreational runners in prospective, longitudinal running-related injury research involving running technologies. Methods: Twenty-seven recreational runners (14 female, 13 male) participated across nine semi-structured focus groups. Focus groups were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken, with a critical friend approach taken to enhance reliability. Results: Incentives, recruiting suitable participants, ease of use of running technologies, an appropriate research design, and good communication practices will facilitate recruitment and retention. Conclusion: Receiving study outputs, evidence-based information and undergoing laboratory testing were identified as incentives, however, researchers need to consider whether these may influence participant behaviour and adversely bias the findings of their study. Researchers should offer participants an option with regard to the type, content, frequency and mode of delivery of incentives and communication. Appealing to potential participants’ personal interests will facilitate initial recruitment, while attempts to ‘feed’ this interest throughout the course of a study will enhance retention. Employing a user-friendly smartphone app and unobtrusive sensor(s), and a research study that can work with runners’ training schedules and technology usage habits, will further facilitate their recruitment and retention.

Purpose Understanding users’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of technologies will influence their adoption and sustained use. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the barriers and facilitators to their use of injury focused wearable technologies. Methods A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n=13) and female (n=14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and attachment method of a wearable device and the design of a smartphone application were identified as important barriers and facilitators, with receiving useful injury-related feedback identified as a further facilitator. Conclusions Overtraining, training-related and individual- related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence- based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.