Table 2

Coach perceptions of injury risks, outcome expectancies and action self-efficacy

All coaches (n=440)Users Knee Control+
Users other IPEP (n=144)Non-users
Motivational phase
Injury risk perceptions
What do you think about the overall injury risk in football? (low–high)5.0 (1.0)5.0 (2.0)5.0 (1.0)5.0 (1.0)
What do you think about the injury risk in the team that you coach? (low–high)4.0 (2.0)*4.0 (2.0)4.0 (2.0)*4.0 (2.0)
Outcome expectancies
I believe many injuries can be prevented in football (do not agree–agree)6.0 (1.0)*6.0 (1.0)6.0 (1.0)*6.0 (1.5)
I believe specific training can prevent injuries in football (do not agree–agree)6.0 (2.0)*6.0 (1.0)6.0 (2.0)*6.0 (2.0)
Action self-efficacy
My knowledge about preventing injuries in football is… (inadequate–adequate)5.0 (1.0)5.0 (1.0)5.0 (1.0)4.0 (2.0)
  • Health Action Process Approach constructs in bold. The respective questions are presented in italics.

  • Values are median (IQR). All questions are rated on a 1–7 Likert scale from 1=low/do not agree/inadequate to 7=high/agree/adequate. Groups are based on whether the respondent had used Knee Control+ (users Knee Control+), Knee Control or the 11+ (users other IPEP) or if they had not used a complete injury prevention programme during the 2021 season (non-users). Non-users did not use a complete injury prevention programme but many used some exercises.

  • *1 missing answer.

  • IPEP, injury prevention exercise programme.