Concussion prevention strategies: A Survey of division I and division II female soccer teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study is to evaluate concussion prevention strategies being used in NCAA Division I and Division II women9s soccer and characterize the beliefs of Certified Athletic Trainers (ATs) on concussion prevention methods. Background While much attention has been paid to decreasing concussion rates in collegiate woman9s soccer, it is unknown what prevention strategies are currently being performed. Additionally, ATs’ beliefs on the efficacy of concussion prevention practices for these athletes is unknown. Design/Methods Participants included ATs employed at any of the 334 Division I or 273 Division II universities working with woman9s soccer. A survey instrument of structured questions followed by open-ended follow up questions was developed to identify if teams utilized cervical strengthening programs, headgear, or other techniques for concussion prevention. Questions also address ATs9 beliefs on the effectiveness of cervical strengthening, headgear and mouthguards in concussion prevention. Data were collected via questionnaire e-mailed through Qualtrics survey software. Responses were received from 222 ATs (37.8% response rate). Data were analyzed via descriptive statistics. Results Some form of cervical strengthening or stability for concussion prevention was performed by 38 teams (17.12%) and seven (3.15%) were unsure. The majority (69.86%) believe such programs will aid in concussion prevention. Equipment for concussion prevention was report by 36 (16.59%). Text responses included mouthpieces (n = 3) and headgear (n = 31). Seventy-eight (35.49%) reported players on their team wear headgear. Nineteen (8.76%) believe headgear prevents concussions. Forty-five (20.74%) believe mouthguards prevent concussions. Proper soccer technique is implemented by 151 (69.59%) and 14 (0.06%) cite nutritional strategies for concussion prevention. Conclusions Although most ATs believe that cervical strengthening aids concussion prevention, few programs are implementing this strategy. Disconnect exists between available evidence and the perceptions held by ATs regarding mouthguards and headgear for concussion prevention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".