A Helmet of Her Own?: A Qualitative Study of Key Stakeholder Perspectives on Headgear in Girls' Lacrosse.

Introduction: Despite the high incidence rate of concussions in women's lacrosse, there is substantial push back against the use of helmets at the secondary educational and collegiate levels in the U.S. This study examines the social factors influencing the controversy surrounding the use of protective headgear and how the recent development of headgear specific to the women's game has shaped ongoing debates. Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to recruit interviewees with research knowledge or firsthand experience with injury and protective headgear in girls' lacrosse. Semistructured interviews were conducted and subsequently coded using qualitative research software to identify key themes and patterns. Results: Sixteen respondents participated in this study; 4 players, 4 coaches, 3 researchers, and 5 administrators were represented in this sample. Overarching themes identified across these interviews included playing through pain, health consequences of concussions, concussion prevention strategies and the potential role of headgear, symbolism of headgear, gender dynamics, autonomy, and decision making. Conclusions: This qualitative study shows the importance of attention to the unique history of girls' lacrosse and current narratives surrounding headgear in the sport. There is a need for greater collaboration and consensus between all relevant groups to ensure that headgear best addresses the concerns of the people who will ultimately be using it. Future qualitative research should build on this preliminary study with a larger and more diverse sample to follow up on key themes and ultimately inform effective safety measures to protect athletes.

Toward Complete, Candid, and Unbiased International Consensus Statements on Concussion in Sport.

Five international consensus statements on concussion in sports have been published. This commentary argues that there is a strong need for a new approach to them that foregrounds public health expertise and patient-centered guidance. Doing so will help players, parents and practitioners keep perspective about these potentially life-altering injuries especially when they recur.

No Excuses: A Brief History of Playing Through Risk in College Football.

Celebrations of playing through risk, skepticism of athletes perceived as faking injuries, unregulated training regimens, the mythos of amateurism, and lack of accountability for preventable health harms have long characterized many college football programs. Setting policies that effectively prioritize player health will require taking this history into account.

Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws in the United States: Origins, Context, and Controversies.

This article examines the origins and context of mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the United States. Localities began to enact such laws in the early 1990s, having experimented with helmet laws for motorcycles previously. As cycling became increasingly popular in the 1970s and 1980s because of a variety of historical trends, from improved cycle technology to growing environmental consciousness, cycling-related injuries also increased. Bicycle safety advocates and researchers alike were particularly troubled by head injuries. National injury surveillance systems and a growing body of medical literature on bicycle-related injuries motivated a number of physicians, cyclists, children, and other community members to advocate helmet laws, which they argued would save lives. Controversy over these laws, particularly over whether they should apply universally or only to children, raised public health ethics concerns that persist in contemporary debates over bicycle helmet policies. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1198-1204. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305718).

"The Duty of Their Elders" - Doctors, Coaches, and the Framing of Youth Football's Health Risks, 1950s-1960s.

After World War II, organized tackle football programs for boys younger than high school age grew enormously in popularity in the United States, prompting concerns from pediatricians and educators about the sport's physical and emotional health effects. At the same time, sports medicine was emerging as a sub-specialty. Examining how American sports medicine doctors and football coaches established their professional authority on youth football safety in the 1950s and 1960s reveals how their justifications for this collision sport were connected to broader cultural trends. Doctors and coaches, who were virtually all men, emphasized their firsthand knowledge of an all-male sport that was widely promoted as a means of teaching boys to become men. They insisted that proper supervision and equipment were sufficient to protect young athletes. Their arguments for youth football's benefits were based on the belief that men best knew how to impart desired values such as loyalty, patriotism and discipline to boys. In framing football's health risks as manageable with adult supervision, coaches and sports medicine doctors played a crucial role in promoting the vision of American manhood associated with tackle football.

Youth sports & public health: framing risks of mild traumatic brain injury in american football and ice hockey.

The framing of the risks of experiencing mild traumatic brain injury in American football and ice hockey has an enormous impact in defining the scope of the problem and the remedies that are prioritized. According to the prevailing risk frame, an acceptable level of safety can be maintained in these contact sports through the application of technology, rule changes, and laws. An alternative frame acknowledging that these sports carry significant risks would produce very different ethical, political, and social debates.

Banning smoking in parks and on beaches: science, policy, and the politics of denormalization.

Campaigns to limit tobacco use started in the 1970s and have led to bans on public smoking, which have been extended to parks and beaches. A review of state and local statutes shows that during 1993-2011, smoking was banned in 843 parks and on 150 beaches across the United States. Three justifications for these restrictions have been invoked: the risk of passive smoke to nonsmokers, the pollution caused by cigarette butts, and the long-term risks to children from seeing smoking in public. Our analysis of the evidence for these claims found it far from definitive and in some cases weak. What, then, accounts for the efforts to impose such bans? We conclude that the impetus is the imperative to denormalize smoking as part of a broader public health campaign to reduce tobacco-related illness and death. Although invoking limited evidence may prove effective in the short run, it is hazardous for public health policy makers, for whom public trust is essential.