Educational online prevention programme (the SPRINT study) has no effect on the number of running-related injuries in recreational runners: a randomised-controlled trial.

Running-related injuries are common, and many runners look for ways to prepare that might lower their risk. This trial tested whether an enhanced online injury prevention programme, offered before a running event, could reduce the number of new running-related injuries compared with runners preparing as usual. Over 4,000 recreational runners registered for events in the Netherlands were randomised to receive the online programme or to follow their normal preparation, and injuries were tracked from before the event to one month after. The result was a null one: about 35.5% of the intervention group developed a new injury versus 35.4% of the control group, with no statistically significant difference detected between the groups.

Oddly, runners who followed more of the programme's items actually had a slightly higher injury rate, an association the authors flag as unexpected. The main limitation is that a generic online programme delivered before an event may not suit the varied and individual timing needs of different runners, which the authors suggest future research should address.

If you've ever wondered whether following an online injury-prevention programme before a race could keep you from getting hurt, this study offers a direct answer. Researchers followed over 4,000 recreational runners preparing for events ranging from 10 kilometers to a full marathon.

Half were given access to an online prevention programme with exercises and advice, and half just prepared as they normally would. By one month after the race, both groups had almost identical injury rates, around 35% in each group had a new running-related injury. There was no statistically significant difference between them, meaning the programme did not show a detectable effect on injury numbers in this trial.

Interestingly, runners who stuck more closely to the programme's recommendations didn't do better, they had a slightly higher injury rate, which surprised the researchers. This doesn't mean injury prevention advice is worthless, but it does suggest that a one-size-fits-all online programme delivered before a race may not be the right approach for everyone. The researchers point toward more individually tailored prevention as a direction for future study.

This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.

This randomised controlled trial enrolled runners registering for events spanning 10 km to marathon distance in the Netherlands, with 4,050 participants included in the final analysis (63.5% male, mean age 42.3 years). Participants were randomised to an enhanced online injury prevention programme or usual pre-event preparation, with the primary outcome being new running-related injuries from baseline to one month post-event. Injury proportions were nearly identical between groups: 35.5% (95% CI 33.5 to 37.6) in the intervention arm versus 35.4% (95% CI 33.3 to 37.5) in the control arm, yielding an odds ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.17), indicating no statistically significant between-group difference.

Notably, a secondary analysis found a positive association between the number of programme items followed and injury occurrence (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11), an association that runs counter to the intended direction of effect and should be interpreted with caution given its observational, within-intervention-group nature rather than a randomised comparison. The trial's large sample size and randomised design lend confidence to the null primary finding, though the abstract does not report on adherence quality, injury severity, or blinding, limiting further mechanistic interpretation. The authors themselves conclude that generic online prevention did not reduce injury rates and suggest that individually targeted, better-timed interventions warrant future investigation.