Validation and utilisation of a digital version of the Survey instrument for Natural history, Aetiology and Prevalence of Patellofemoral pain Studies (eSNAPPS)

Yusuf, Mohamed, Dey, Paola, Callaghan, Michael, Relph, Nicola, Gichuru, Phillip, Pinner, Susan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-2644, Ashbrook, Jane, Ashman, Joanne, Goodwin, Peter ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6533-0949, Macdonald, Ruth and Selfe, James (2021) Validation and utilisation of a digital version of the Survey instrument for Natural history, Aetiology and Prevalence of Patellofemoral pain Studies (eSNAPPS). Physical Therapy in Sport, 50. pp. 82-88. ISSN 1466-853X

Preview

Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (661kB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. Design This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. Participants A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. Main outcome measure The 12-month prevalence of PFP. Results: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p<0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1,080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). Conclusion The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.