MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1080/15438627.2022.2113880

Медицинская библиотека · Research in sports medicine (Print) · 2022

Headgear safety attitudes: a national survey of collegiate women's lacrosse stakeholders.

Kelshaw Patricia M, Kneavel Meredith E, Bowman Thomas G, Rainone Cat

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Controversy exists among collegiate lacrosse about the use of headgear and whether its use will facilitate greater risk compensation by players and thus contribute to unsafe gameplay. We aimed to characterize the attitudes of headgear among women's collegiate lacrosse stakeholders. A total of 190 women's lacrosse stakeholders (players: n = 87; coaches: n = 71; officials: n = 32) participated in this study. Participants completed a survey surrounding attitudes of headgear in women's lacrosse. Descriptives, multiple regressions, and Kruskal-Wallis analyses compared attitudes surrounding headgear among stakeholder groups. Scales of Headgear Affects Play (β = -0.38, p < 0.001) and Sports Development and Safety Practices (β = 0.26, p < 0.05) significantly predicted endorsement on Headgear Safety Attitudes Scale. Among players, Aesthetics (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) and Intention to Wear Headgear (β = 0.31, p < 0.05) predicted endorsement on Headgear Safety Attitudes Scale. Stakeholders did not agree if headgear should be worn in women's lacrosse. Items related to sports development, safety and potential changes in gameplay predicted attitudes to headgear safety among all participants.

Для цитирования: Kelshaw Patricia M, Kneavel Meredith E, Bowman Thomas G, Rainone Cat. Headgear safety attitudes: a national survey of collegiate women's lacrosse stakeholders.. Research in sports medicine (Print). 2022. DOI: 10.1080/15438627.2022.2113880.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.