Patrick Keyzer

A concept mapping approach to identifying the barriers to implementing an evidence-based sports injury prevention programme

Background and aim Understanding the barriers to programme use is important to facilitate implementation of injury prevention programmes in real-word settings. This study investigated the barriers to coaches of adolescent female soccer teams, in Victoria, Australia, implementing the evidence-based FIFA 11+ injury prevention programme. Methods Concept mapping with data collected from 19 soccer coaches and administrators. Results Brainstorming generated 65 statements as barriers to 11+ implementation. After the statements were synthesised and edited, participants sorted 59 statements into groups (mean, 6.2 groups; range, 3–10 groups). Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis identified a six-cluster solution: Lack of 11+ knowledge among coaches (15 statements), Lack of player enjoyment and engagement (14), Lack of link to football-related goals (11), Lack of facilities and resources (8), Lack of leadership (6) and Lack of time at training (5). Statements in the ‘Lack of 11+ knowledge among coaches’ cluster received the highest mean importance (3.67 out of 5) and feasibility for the Football Federation to address (3.20) rating. Statements in the ‘Lack of facilities and resources’ cluster received the lowest mean importance rating (2.23), while statements in the ‘Lack of time at training’ cluster received the lowest mean feasibility rating (2.19). Conclusions A multistrategy, ecological approach to implementing the 11+—with specific attention paid to improving coach knowledge about the 11+ and how to implement it, linking the 11+ to the primary goal of soccer training, and organisational leadership—is required to improve the uptake of the 11+ among the targeted coaches.

Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders and Human Rights: The Intervention of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations

In 2010 The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (the UNHCR) made rulings on two “communications” submitted by Australian citizens, Robert Fardon and Ken Tillman, about what they contended was the unlawfulness of their preventive detention in Queensland and New South Wales respectively. The UNHCR upheld their applications and declared their detention unlawful by virtue of its constituting a breach of Article 9, paragraph 1, Article 14, paragraph 1, and Article 15, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The decision has major ramifications for the preventive detention systems in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. It provides a fillip for a new rehabilitative, non-penitential focus for such regimes and raises ethical issues for mental health practitioners currently functioning in and advising in relation to such systems.

The Removal of Convicted Noncitizens from Australia Is There Only a ‘Minimal and Remote’ Chance of Getting it Right?

86 — AltLJ Vol 41:2 2016 On 22 December 2014 the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) issued Direction 65 to supplement section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This regime enables the Minister or a delegate to cancel a visa held by a noncitizen convicted of an offence on the basis that they have failed a ‘character test’. Ordinarily a person will fail the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, defined as a criminal conviction attracting a sentence (or, in practice, adding up to cumulative sentences) of 12 months or more.

The preventive detention of 'dangerous' sex offenders in Australia: Perspectives at the coalface

Four Australian states, Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria as well as the Northern Territory have enacted laws that enable the continued detention in prison of “dangerous” sex offenders beyond the completion of their sentence. This has proved to be a popular response from a political and social policy perspective, with the New South Wales government recently extending its scheme to include serious violent offenders. While the Queensland scheme has been upheld by the High Court of Australia as constitutional, preventive detention laws raise human rights issues and problems with implementation. This paper outlines the results of 86 interviews carried out with psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, former corrective services officials, lawyers and police officers who have first-hand experience with the operation of the Australian schemes. The results indicate that those at the “coalface” in relation to post-sentence preventive detention schemes are critical of a number of matters such as the general reliance on preventive detention rather than rehabilitation, the reliance on and use of risk assessment tools as well as media reporting of sex offenders.

The “Preventive Detention” of Serious Sex Offenders: Further Consideration of the International Human Rights Dimensions

Several State jurisdictions in Australia have implemented legislation that detains a sex offender in prison after the conclusion of their prison sentence on the basis of a prediction of risk and with no further requirement of a fresh crime or criminal trial. A constitutional challenge to this legislation failed (see (2004) 11(2) PP L 244–253). This article sets out arguments that have been advanced by Ken Tillman in a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the New South Wales legislation inflicts arbitrary detention and double punishment contrary to Articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

EQUIPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT OF FITNESS FACILITIES: THE PERSPECTIVE OF FITNESS INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES

Background Fitness facilities provide an avenue for people to engage in physical activity, however it is important that these facilities do all in their power to reduce the likelihood of injuries occurring. The attitudes and practices of those employed in the fitness industry with respect to risk management are important for implementation of injury prevention measures, as are risk management procedures currently in place. Objective To identify views of the fitness industry employees about injury risks and hazards associated with equipment and training environments within fitness facilities and their risk management and hazard identification practices in relation to them. Design A 6-week nationwide online survey. Setting Australia-wide fitness industry. Participants 1 178 adults across Australia who own, manage or work in the fitness industry. Main outcome measurements Responses to 6-point Likert scale questions. Results 79.1% of survey respondents held the safety of the fitness premises in high importance, and 80.2% stated that the location and condition of their facility (access, lighting, floor surfaces etc.) was very/extremely safe. The layout of equipment in the facility was very/extremely good in 61.9% of cases, and fitness equipment maintenance was reported to have been conducted frequently by 68.5% of the respondents. Fitness employees frequently observed hazardous conditions of the exercise areas with respect to objects lying around (43.8% of cases), equipment misuse (41.9% of cases), and facility users lifting weights that were considered too heavy (47.8% of cases). Conclusion The findings suggest that facility users should be provided with further education regarding their physical activity programs and behaviours that could reduce injury risk, and that guidelines for using the facility should be made more obvious. The findings also indicate that fitness industry employees should be given risk management training, and that in facilities where hazards were observed and hazardous practices are engaged in, that risk analysis and management protocols need to be implemented.

Awareness and use of the 11+ injury prevention program among coaches of adolescent female football teams:

Coaches are essential to participant safety, particularly by implementing injury prevention programs. The evidence-based injury prevention programs developed by sports scientists will not prevent injuries in real-world sports settings if they are not properly implemented. This study investigated the knowledge and use of the highly efficacious 11+ injury prevention program among coaches of adolescent, female football teams, in Victoria, Australia. A cross-sectional online survey based on the RE-AIM framework identified that nearly half (42%) of the 64 respondents (response rate = 36%) were not aware of the 11+, and only one-third (31%) reported using it. Three-quarters (74%) of the 19 respondents who reported on the 11+ components they used, did not use the entire program. Nearly half (44%) of the 18 respondents who reported the frequency with which they used the 11+, used it less than the recommended twice a week. Barriers to implementing the 11+ included: limited awareness of the 11+; lack of knowledge about how to implement it; not having time to implement it; and believing that the 11+ does not incorporate appropriate progression. This study suggests that it is unlikely that the 11+ prevents a significant number of injuries in real-world football settings due to the lack of awareness and use among coaches. Football-governing bodies should use evidence-based strategies to raise awareness of the 11+, build coach competency to implement it, and address time-related implementation barriers that coaches experience. Coaches should keep up-to-date with injury prevention research evidence and prioritize injury prevention at training, including allocating time to implement injury prevention programs properly.

Fitness to Stand Trial and Disability Discrimination: An International Critique of Australia

In Noble v Australia (2016) the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities determined that Australia was in violation of a series of its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The decision was a response to a communication brought by an Indigenous man, Marlon Noble, who had been found unfit to stand trial, had not had the opportunity to plead not guilty, and had been detained in a prison for over a decade. This article reviews the reasoning in the decision, the subsequent response by the Australian government and an inquiry into Western Australias fitness to stand trial legislation. It argues that reform is urgently required in jurisdictions that fail to accord procedural fairness and suitable assistance to persons whose disabilities may preclude their meaningful participation in the criminal justice system.