Protective Eyewear Promotion: Applying Principles of Behaviour Change in the Design of a Squash Injury Prevention Programme

Eye injuries in squash have the potential to be severe. Although these injuries can be prevented through the use of protective eyewear, few players wear such eyewear. The aim of this paper is, to outline the behavioural principles guiding the design of a squash eyewear promotion initiative, the Protective Eyewear Promotion (PEP). Ecological principles of behaviour change were used to provide a comprehensive perspective on intrapersonal factors, policies and physical environmental influences of protective eyewear use. Results of baseline player surveys and venue manager inter-views were used to provide relevant and specific intervention content. At baseline, protective eyewear was not found to be readily available, and players' behaviours, knowledge and attitudes did not favour its use. The main components of PEP involved informing and educating both players and squash venue operators of the risk of eye injury and of appropriate protective eyewear, as well as assisting with the availability of the eyewear and offering incentives for players to use it. A structural strength of PEP was the strong collaborative links with the researchers of different disciplines, the squash governing body, eyewear manufacturers, squash venue personnel, as well as players. Attempts were made within the project structure to make provision for the future dissemination and sustainability of more widespread eye injury prevention measures in the sport of squash.

The effectiveness of a squash eyewear promotion strategy

Objective: To evaluate the protective eyewear promotion ( PEP) project, which was a comprehensive educational strategy to increase the use of appropriate protective eyewear by squash players. Methods: An ecological study design was used. Four squash venues in one playing association were randomly chosen to receive PEP and four in another association maintained usual practice and hence formed a control group. The primary evaluation measurements were surveys of cross sectional samples of players carried out before and after the intervention. The surveys investigated players' knowledge, behaviours, and attitudes associated with the use of protective eyewear. The survey carried out after the intervention also determined players' exposure to PEP. Univariate and multivariate analyses were undertaken to describe differences at PEP venues from pre- to post-intervention and to compare these with the control venues. Results: The PEP players had 2.4 times the odds (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 4.2) of wearing appropriate eyewear compared with control group players post-intervention, relative to the groups' preintervention baselines. Components of PEP, such as stickers and posters and the availability and prominent positioning of the project eyewear, were found to contribute to players adopting favourable eyewear behaviours. Conclusions: Components of the PEP intervention were shown to be effective. The true success will be the sustainability and dissemination of the project, favourable eyewear behaviours, and evidence of the prevention of eye injuries long into the future.