Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
In the past two decades, there has been a revolution in literature relating to the epidemiology, aetiology, early recognition, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sports-related concussion (SRC). This research has resulted in the publication of five international concussion in sport consensus statements.1 Are those recommendations impacting on pitch-side rulings and contributing to the real-life management of SRC? We ask: ‘Is evidence-based SRC information reaching those it concerns the most, i.e. the athletes?’2
Athletes’ understanding of concussion and its management within alpine ski racing: so far not so good!
Within alpine ski racing, SRC is the most frequent head injury.3 The International Ski Federation (FIS) has established SRC return-to-play guidelines,4 but athletes aim to dodge the guidelines by under-reporting their symptoms (eg, persistent headache, blurred vision),5 possibly resulting in premature return to sport. Besides this, athlete adherence to such guidelines may be impeded by insufficient understanding of the potential long-term consequences of SRC (eg, increased risk of reinjury, prolonged recovery from subsequent concussions, mild cognitive impairment or depression).
To better understand alpine ski racing athletes’ perceptions, beliefs and experiences of concussion, we conducted a qualitative interview study with 11 participants. These 11 participants were representatives from a world-leading ski association comprising 88 athletes. The underlying …
Contributors NM and JS designed and conceptualised the paper. NM (supervised by LR and JS) conducted, analysed and interpreted the interviews. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.