4.4 Review

Disclosure and non-disclosure of concussion and concussion symptoms in athletes: Review and application of the socio-ecological framework

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 1009-1021

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2014.904049

Keywords

Policy; reporting; sports; traumatic brain injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary objective: To summarize the factors associated with athletes' disclosure-and non-disclosure-of sports-related concussion and concussion symptoms within the context of the socio-ecological framework and to identify research gaps in the current literature. Methods: Searches using electronic databases identified studies written in English, published through October 2013 and addressing some aspect of disclosure of concussion and concussion symptoms. The literature search aimed to be comprehensive and inclusive of all previous contributions. Main outcomes and results: Of the 30 identified studies, most originated from the US (n = 19) and sampled athletes (n = 21) and coaches (n = 10) from high school (n = 11) and college levels (n = 9). The identified reasons for non-disclosure were organized into four levels using the socio-ecological framework: intra-personal (e. g. lack of knowledge; internal pressure; sex; concussion history; n = 20 studies); inter-personal (e. g. others' knowledge/attitudes; external pressure; external support; n = 15 studies); environment (e. g. access to concussion prevention materials; sports culture; n = 4 studies); and policy (e. g. concussion-related legislation; n = 3 studies). No study examined all four levels. Conclusions: Research gaps exist concerning factors influencing athletes' disclosure of sports-related concussions and concussion symptoms. Notably, researchers have focused on intra-personal and inter-personal levels, placing less emphasis on the environment and policy levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available