Journal of American college health : J of ACH · 2022
Headgear safety attitudes among women's lacrosse stakeholders: Qualitative results.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kelshaw Patricia M, Bowman Thomas G, Kneavel Meredith E, Rainone Cat
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore diverse stakeholders' perceptions of headgear use in collegiate women's lacrosse.
PARTICIPANTS: 189 collegiate women's lacrosse stakeholders (players: n = 87; coaches: n = 71; officials: n = 32).
METHODS: Participants completed online open-ended qualitative questions surrounding headgear use in the sport. Responses were coded by the research team via inductive reasoning.
RESULTS: Stakeholders felt that incorporating headgear use into women's lacrosse would increase aggression and change the nature of the sport. Some felt that headgear was important for injury risk mitigation and invoked a need for research and development. Stakeholders raised the need for coaching and officiating improvement as primary injury prevention measures. Players were concerned about esthetics and performance limitations. Finally, many felt that it should be left to player choice to wear headgear or not.
CONCLUSION: Most stakeholders invoke concerns of risk compensation and changing the nature of the sport of women's lacrosse, and are in favor of headgear remaining optional.
PARTICIPANTS: 189 collegiate women's lacrosse stakeholders (players: n = 87; coaches: n = 71; officials: n = 32).
METHODS: Participants completed online open-ended qualitative questions surrounding headgear use in the sport. Responses were coded by the research team via inductive reasoning.
RESULTS: Stakeholders felt that incorporating headgear use into women's lacrosse would increase aggression and change the nature of the sport. Some felt that headgear was important for injury risk mitigation and invoked a need for research and development. Stakeholders raised the need for coaching and officiating improvement as primary injury prevention measures. Players were concerned about esthetics and performance limitations. Finally, many felt that it should be left to player choice to wear headgear or not.
CONCLUSION: Most stakeholders invoke concerns of risk compensation and changing the nature of the sport of women's lacrosse, and are in favor of headgear remaining optional.