Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41701683›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2026

Implementation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Sickle Cell Trait Screening Policy: Methods and Staff and Athlete Perspectives.

Kristen L Kucera, Robert P Agans, Paul A Robbins, Yingwei Yang, Mary Anne McDonald, Paul H Haagen, Mina Silberberg, Lorrie Schmid, Deborah L Marean, Charmaine D M Royal

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Public health genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Kristen L KuceraNational Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, kkucera@email.unc.edu.
Robert P AgansCarolina Survey Research Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Paul A RobbinsDepartment of Human Development and Family Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Yingwei YangCenter on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Mary Anne McDonaldCenter on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Paul H HaagenSchool of Law, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Mina SilberbergDivision of Community Health, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Lorrie SchmidCenter on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Deborah L MareanCarolina Survey Research Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Charmaine D M RoyalCenter on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Implementation and Implications of Sickle Cell Trait Screening in the NCAAR01HG010364 · NHGRI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ROYAL, CHARMAINE DAWN MARIE · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010364
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis paper describes methods for a national study evaluating the implementation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) policy on sickle cell trait (SCT) screening of athletes and describes attitudes toward the screening.

methodsIn Fall 2020, 343 Division I schools, 302 Division II schools, and 426 Division III schools were invited to participate in this national survey.

resultsAcross 123 participating schools, a total of 168 sport medicine administrators (121 head athletic trainers and 47 team physicians), 268 athletic staff (128 staff athletic trainers and 140 coaches), and 1,424 athletes from basketball, football, soccer, lacrosse, track and field completed the survey. While the vast majority of respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the screening policy, there was varying support for how the policy was implemented including prioritizing SCT screening versus screening for other conditions (40-50% agreed/strongly agreed), focusing on sports with higher risk of overexertion versus universal screening (50-75% agreed/strongly agreed), and focusing on racial and ethnic groups where SCT is more prevalent (25-40% agreed/strongly agreed). Perspectives varied by NCAA division and race. Higher SCT knowledge scores were associated with believing that screening all athletes for SCT is important.

conclusionsDiscussion of these findings provides important context for assessing how genetic screening requirements are implemented within collegiate athletics and more broadly.

Indexed as

AthletesGenetic TestingMass ScreeningSickle Cell TraitAthletic TrainersFemaleHumansMaleSportsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUniversitiesCollegeEvaluationGenetic screeningSport

Identifiers

PMID41701683
PMCPMC13134841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.