Advertisement

Community-Level Inequalities in Concussion Education of Youth Football Coaches

  • Emily Kroshus
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Emily Kroshus, ScD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, 2001 8th Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle WA 98121
    Affiliations
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

    Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle, Washington

    Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Zachary Y. Kerr
    Affiliations
    Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    Search for articles by this author
  • Joseph G.L. Lee
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 10, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.12.021

      Introduction

      USA Football has made the Heads Up Football (HUF) concussion education program available for coaches of youth football players. Existing evidence about the effectiveness of the HUF coach education program is equivocal. For HUF and other programs, there is growing concern that even effective interventions can increase inequalities if there is different uptake or impact by SES or other demographic factors. Understanding how adoption is patterned along these lines is important for understanding equity issues in youth football. This study tested the hypothesis that there will be lower adoption of HUF among coaches of youth football players in lower-SES communities.

      Methods

      The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of the association between community-level characteristics and number of USA Football youth league coaches who have completed HUF. Data were collected in 2014 and analyzed in 2015–2016.

      Results

      Implementation of the HUF program was patterned by community-level socioeconomic characteristics. Leagues located in communities with a higher percentage of families with children aged <18 years living below the poverty line and a smaller percentage of non-Hispanic white residents tended to have leagues with smaller percentages of HUF-certified coaches.

      Conclusions

      As interventions are developed that reduce the risks of youth football, it is important to consider not just the effectiveness of these interventions, but also whether they reduce or exacerbate health inequities. These results suggest that relying on voluntary adoption of coach education may result in inequitable implementation. Further study is required to identify and remedy organizational and contextual barriers to implementation of coach education in youth sport.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • McCrory P.
        • Meeuwisse W.H.
        • Aubry M.
        • et al.
        Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012.
        Br J Sports Med. 2013; 47: 250-258https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092313
        • Prins M.L.
        • Giza C.C.
        Repeat traumatic brain injury in the developing brain.
        Int J Dev Neurosci. 2012; 30: 185-190https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.05.009
      1. Graham R. Rivara F.P. Ford M.A. Sports-Related Concussions in Youth: Improving the Science, Changing the Culture. National Academies Press, Washington, DC2014
      2. National Federation of State High School Associations. 2011–12 High school athletics participation survey. www.nfhs.org/. Accessed July 29, 2015.

        • National Council of Youth Sports
        Report on Trends and Participation in Organized Youth Sports. 2008; (Accessed December 14, 2016)
        • Prins M.L.
        • Alexander D.
        • Giza C.C.
        • Hovda D.A.
        Repeated mild traumatic brain injury: mechanisms of cerebral vulnerability.
        J Neurotrauma. 2013; 30: 30-38https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2012.2399
        • Eisenberg M.A.
        • Andrea J.
        • Meehan W.
        • Mannix R.
        Time interval between concussions and symptom duration.
        Pediatrics. 2013; 132: 8-17https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0432
      3. Aspen Institute/espnW. Project Play survey of parents on youth sports issues. http://aspenprojectplay.org/sites/default/files/espnw-Aspen%20Institute%20Project%20Play%20Survey%20of%20Parents%20on%20youth%20sports%20issues.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed December 14, 2016.

      4. ESPN. Youth football participation drops. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/popwarner/pop-warner-youth-football-participation-drops-nfl-concussion-crisis-seen-causal-factor. Published 2013. Accessed December 14, 2016.

        • Kerr Z.Y.
        • Yeargin S.W.
        • McLeod T.C.V.
        • et al.
        Comprehensive coach education reduces head impact exposure in American youth football.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2015; 3https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115610545
        • Kerr Z.Y.
        • Yeargin S.
        • McLeod T.C.V.
        • et al.
        Comprehensive coach education and practice contact restriction guidelines result in lower injury rates in youth American football.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2015; 3https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115594578
        • Frohlich K.L.
        • Potvin L.
        Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations.
        Am J Public Health. 2008; 98: 216-221https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114777
        • Bernard P.
        • Charafeddine R.
        • Frohlich K.L.
        • et al.
        Health inequalities and place: a theoretical conception of neighbourhood.
        Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65: 1839-1852https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.037
        • Lorenc T.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Welch V.
        • et al.
        What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013; 67: 190-193https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2012-201257
        • Lin A.C.
        • Salzman G.A.
        • Bachman S.L.
        • et al.
        Assessment of parental knowledge and attitudes toward pediatric sports-related concussions.
        Sports Health. 2015; 7: 124-129https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738115571570
        • Nutbeam D.
        Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century.
        Health Promot Int. 2000; 15: 259-267https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
        • Sorenson K.
        • Van den Broucke S.
        • Fullam J.
        Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models.
        BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 1-13https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80
        • Williams D.R.
        • Collins C.
        Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health.
        Public Health Reports. 2001; 116: 404https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50068-7
        • Grubesic T.H.
        Zip codes and spatial analysis: problems and prospects.
        Socioecon Plan Sci. 2008; 42: 129-149https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2006.09.001
        • U.S. Census Bureau
        American Community Survey.
        Key Facts. 2009; (Accessed December 14, 2016)
      5. U.S. Census Bureau. Geographic terms and concepts—census divisions and census regions. www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html. Accessed December 14, 2016.

        • Brown J.C.
        • Verhagen E.
        • van Mechelen W.
        • Lambert M.I.
        • Draper C.E.
        Coaches’ and referees’ perceptions of the BokSmart injury prevention programme.
        Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2016; 11: 637-647https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116667100
        • Phelan J.C.
        • Link B.G.
        • Tehranifar P.
        Social conditions as fundamental causes of health inequalities: theory, evidence, and policy implications.
        J Health Soc Behav. 2010; 51: S28-S40https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383498
      6. USA Football. https://usafootball.com/headsup. Heads Up Football. The new standard in football. Accessed December 15, 2015.

        • Bain-Selbo E.
        Game Day and God: Football, Faith, and Politics in the American South.
        Mercer University Press, Macon, GA2009
        • Drewnowski A.
        • Rehm C.D.
        • Solet D.
        Disparities in obesity rates: analysis by ZIP code area.
        Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65: 2458-2463https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.001
        • Hill S.
        • Amos A.
        • Clifford D.
        • Platt S.
        Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: review of the evidence.
        Tob Control. 2014; 23: e89-e97https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051110
        • Foraker R.E.
        • Rose K.M.
        • Kucharska-Newton A.M.
        • et al.
        Variation in rates of fatal coronary heart disease by neighborhood socioeconomic status: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Surveillance (1992–2002).
        Ann Epidemiol. 2011; 21: 580-588https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.03.004