BACKGROUND: Despite recent research, nonprescription pain medication use among collegiate athletes across all divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is still not well understood. HYPOTHESIS: Non-Division I-A NCAA athletes have a different usage pattern of nonprescription pain medication than NCAA Division I-A football athletes. METHODS: A modified version of a nonprescription medication usage survey that had been used with Division I-A football athletes was distributed to Division II and Division III athletes during pre-participation exams. The statistics were analyzed by calculating the z-ratio for the significance of the difference between 2 independent proportions. RESULTS: A total of 198 athletes from 16 different sports were surveyed. It was found that 62% of athletes used nonprescription medications for sports-related pain, which was significantly lower than previous findings for Division I-A football athletes: 12% reported taking more than the recommended dose; 1.5% reported taking nonprescription pain medication for > 10 consecutive days; and 38% reported that they read the label the first time they took a new nonprescription pain medication. These results, when compared with findings on Division I-A football athletes, demonstrated that Division II and III athletes are less likely to take more than the recommended dose of nonprescription pain medications and are less likely to use the medications for > 10 consecutive days-characteristics that are used to define misuse. Similar results were found when comparing Division I-A football athletes with non-Division I-A football athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes from NCAA Division II and Division III sports appear to use nonprescription pain medication for sports-related pain less often and have lower rates of misuse than do Division I-A football athletes. Division I-A football athletes may be more likely to misuse nonprescription pain medication than non-Division I-A athletes. Special attention should be paid to this population to help reduce adverse event risks.
BACKGROUND: Despite recent research, nonprescription pain medication use among collegiate athletes across all divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is still not well understood. HYPOTHESIS: Non-Division I-A NCAA athletes have a different usage pattern of nonprescription pain medication than NCAA Division I-A football athletes. METHODS: A modified version of a nonprescription medication usage survey that had been used with Division I-A football athletes was distributed to Division II and Division III athletes during pre-participation exams. The statistics were analyzed by calculating the z-ratio for the significance of the difference between 2 independent proportions. RESULTS: A total of 198 athletes from 16 different sports were surveyed. It was found that 62% of athletes used nonprescription medications for sports-related pain, which was significantly lower than previous findings for Division I-A football athletes: 12% reported taking more than the recommended dose; 1.5% reported taking nonprescription pain medication for > 10 consecutive days; and 38% reported that they read the label the first time they took a new nonprescription pain medication. These results, when compared with findings on Division I-A football athletes, demonstrated that Division II and III athletes are less likely to take more than the recommended dose of nonprescription pain medications and are less likely to use the medications for > 10 consecutive days-characteristics that are used to define misuse. Similar results were found when comparing Division I-A football athletes with non-Division I-A football athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes from NCAA Division II and Division III sports appear to use nonprescription pain medication for sports-related pain less often and have lower rates of misuse than do Division I-A football athletes. Division I-A football athletes may be more likely to misuse nonprescription pain medication than non-Division I-A athletes. Special attention should be paid to this population to help reduce adverse event risks.
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Kathryn A Bresnick; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Tanran R Wang; Krista F Huybrechts; Lauren A Wise Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: S Christopher; B A Tadlock; B J Veroneau; C Harnish; N K P Perera; A M Knab; S Vallabhajosula; G S Bullock Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 2.362