ArticleJournal of athletic training2024
Improving Concussion Education: Do Athletic Trainers' Opinions Match Expert Consensus?
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review and Content Appraisal of Free Public Athlete Concussion Education Interventions.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe National Collegiate Athletic Association and Department of Defense (NCAA-DoD) Mind Matters Challenge created "useful and feasible" consensus recommendations to improve concussion care-seeking behavior in collegiate athletes and military cadets. Given athletic trainers' (ATs') role as providers of concussion education and medical care, it is important to understand if they agree with the expert panel that the recommendations are useful and feasible.
objectiveTo describe and compare the perceptions of ATs in the secondary school (SS) and collegiate settings of the utility and feasibility of the NCAA-DoD Mind Matters Challenge recommendations on improving concussion education.
designCross-sectional study.
settingElectronic survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsFive hundred fifteen (515) ATs (age = 40.7 ± 12.4 years, 53.1% female gender) practicing in the SS (60.6%) or collegiate (38.4%) setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): An online survey asked participants about their awareness of the statement followed by 17 pairs of Likert-item questions regarding each recommendation's utility and feasibility with responses ranging from no (1) to yes (9). Mimicking the consensus process, we defined consensus as a mean rating of ≥7.00. We compared utility and feasibility rating responses between SS and collegiate setting participants using Mann-Whitney U tests with α = .05.
resultsTwo-thirds (66.6%) of participants were unaware of the consensus statement. Participants felt all recommendations were useful (all means ≥ 7.0); however, 4 recommendations related to collaborating with stakeholders did not meet the feasibility cutoff (mean range = 6.66-6.84). Secondary school ATs rated lower feasibility related to educational content (P value range = .001-.014), providing patient education throughout recovery (P = .002), and promoting peer intervention (P = .019) but higher utility (P = .007) and feasibility (P = .002) for providing parent education than collegiate ATs.
conclusionsThe NCAA-DoD Mind Matters Challenge recommendations require further dissemination. Athletic trainers rated collaboration with stakeholders as a feasibility barrier. Secondary school ATs require more resources for educational content, messaging, and promoting peer intervention but find educating athletes' parents more useful and feasible than collegiate ATs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.