Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11273968›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2001

What do under 15 year old schoolboy rugby union players think about protective headgear?

C F Finch, A S McIntosh, P McCrory

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The Preventing Australian Football Injuries with Exercise (PAFIX) Study: a group randomised controlled trial.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2009
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. High School Football Players Use Their Helmets to Tackle Other Players Despite Knowing the Risks.Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Preventing head and neck injury.British journal of sports medicine · 2005
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Sport psychology and concussion: new impacts to explore.British journal of sports medicine · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C F FinchSports Injury Prevention Research Unit, School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
A S McIntosh
P McCrory
Deakin University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhen protective headgear is designed, the attitudes of the intended users needs to be taken into account, as well as safety performance criteria. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the attitudes of schoolboy rugby union players towards protective headgear.

methodsA survey of 140 rugby union players (82.4% response rate) from 10 randomly selected school teams in metropolitan Sydney was conducted at the end of the 1999 playing season. All players were aged 14-16 years. All teams had participated in a trial of headgear during the 1999 season in which six of the teams had been assigned to a headgear trial arm and four teams to a control arm. Players completed a self report questionnaire during a supervised session at school. The questionnaire collected information on recent head injuries, use of protective equipment, and attitudes towards headgear.

resultsSome form of protective equipment was always worn by 76.1% of players: 93.6% reported using a mouthguard and 79.3% a helmet/headgear during the 1999 season. The two most important reasons for wearing headgear were related to safety concerns. Players with no recent head/neck injury were more likely to report that they felt safer when wearing headgear (p<0.001) and less likely to cite a previous injury as a motivating factor for wearing headgear (p<0.001) than those who had sustained a recent head/neck injury. Of the players who wore headgear during the 1999 season, 67% said that they played more confidently when they wore headgear, but 63% said that their head was hotter. Few players reported that their head was uncomfortable (15%) or that it was hard to communicate (3%) when they wore headgear. The main reasons for not wearing headgear were related to its design features: uncomfortable (61%) and it was hot (57%).

conclusionsThe primary reason cited by players for wearing headgear is safety. Receiving an injury would also motivate non-wearers to wear headgear. Players report that they are more confident and able to tackle harder if they wear headgear, suggesting that a belief in its protective capabilities may influence behaviour. These attitudes need to be addressed in the design of effective headgear as well as in strategies to promote its use.

Indexed as

AttitudeFootballHead Protective DevicesAdolescentCraniocerebral TraumaHumansMaleSafety

Identifiers

PMID11273968
PMCPMC1724295
OpenAlexW2097256530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.