Dataset Information

Athletic Trainers' Job Tasks and Status During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Preliminary Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Context

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, also known as the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), became a global public health crisis. Government officials in the United States subsequently responded by issuing lockdown orders that closed schools, terminated sports, and resulted in many people transitioning to working from home, immediately affecting the ability of athletic trainers (ATs) to practice clinically.

Objective

To describe the job status, job duties, telemedicine use, and resiliency of ATs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Mixed-methods survey.

Patients or other participants

A total of 611 ATs (age = 32 ± 13 years).

Main outcome measure(s)

The survey consisted of 6 demographic questions, a job status assessment (3 questions, 1 open-ended prompt), a telemedicine use assessment (5 questions, 2 open-ended prompts), and the 6-item Brief Resilience Scale. Qualitative analyses were completed using Text iQ technology and descriptive statistics, and cross-tabulations were conducted using follow-up χ2 comparisons of resiliency with job setting and telemedicine use.

Results

Most ATs continued to work in some capacity throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed optimism about the likelihood that their job status and setting would return. However, participants shared financial and mental health concerns because of reduced pay, stress, and uncertainty about the future. We also identified versatility within the profession, as ATs were serving in new roles related to COVID-19 or adopting telemedicine (n = 251, 41.1%). Athletic trainers were implementing all domains of clinical practice using telemedicine, yet most did not consult legal counsel on or have formal training in the delivery method before implementation. Finally, most ATs exhibited normal resilience that was not affected by job setting (χ2 = 26.901, P = .68) or the use of virtual health care (χ2 = 2.597, P = .27).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected ATs' jobs, and in many cases, the ATs have demonstrated adaptability and value in assuming various roles in the larger health care system.

SUBMITTER: Winkelmann ZK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7863602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextDetermining an athlete's hydration status allows hydration-related concerns to be identified before significant medical or performance concerns arise. Weight charts are an accurate measure of hydration status changes, yet their clinical use by athletic trainers (ATs) is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate ATs' use of weight charts in athletic settings and describe their subsequent clinical decisions.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingHigh schools and National Collegiate Athletic Association Divisions I, II, III and National Association Intercollegiate Athletics colleges.Patients or other participantsA total of 354 ATs (men = 162, women = 175; 17 respondents did not answer the demographic questions) responded across athletic settings (Division I [45.7%]; Division II, Division III, National Association Intercollegiate Athletics combined [n = 19.9%]; and high school [34.4%]).Main outcome measure(s)The 26-question online survey was developed by content experts and pilot tested before data collection. Participants answered questions focused on weight-chart use (implementation, timing, and calculations) and clinical decision processes (policies, interventions, and referral). Frequency statistics were calculated.ResultsThe majority of ATs (57.2%) did not use weight charts. Of those who did, most (76.0%) used charts with football, soccer (28%), and wrestling (6%) athletes. They calculated changes as either an absolute (42.2%) or percentage (36.7%) change from prepractice to postpractice; only 11.7% used a baseline weight for calculations. Of those who used the percentage change in body mass, 66.0% selected a threshold of -3% to -4% for an intervention. Most ATs (97.0%) intervened with verbal education, whereas only one-third (37.0%) provided specific fluid amounts based on body mass changes.ConclusionsTypically, ATs in athletic settings did not use weight charts. They considered a body mass change of -3% the indication for intervention but did not specify rehydration amounts for hypohydrated athletes. Educational workshops or technology applications could be developed to encourage ATs to use weight charts and calculate appropriate individual fluid interventions for their athletes.