Literature DB >> 31986099

Challenges Faced by Collegiate Athletic Trainers, Part I: Organizational Conflict and Clinical Decision Making.

Alicia M Pike Lacy1, Thomas G Bowman2, Stephanie Mazerolle Singe1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Organizational conflict, particularly between coaches and medical professionals, has been reported in collegiate athletics. Different values create room for conflict between coaches and athletic trainers (ATs); however, ATs' experiences when making medical decisions are not fully understood.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the presence of organizational conflict regarding medical decision making and determine if differences exist across athletic affiliations.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Collegiate athletics (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics [NAIA], National Junior College Athletic Association [NJCAA]). PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 434 ATs responded (age = 27.7 ± 3.2 years, years certified = 5.2 ± 2.7), representing the NCAA Division I (DI; n = 199), Division II (DII; n = 67), Division III (DIII; n = 108); NAIA (n = 37); and NJCAA (n = 23) settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The survey instrument contained quantitative measures and open-ended questions, with affiliation as our primary independent variable. Responses to Likert-scale questions (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree) regarding organizational pressures within athletics served as the dependent variables. Kruskal-Wallis analysis-of-variance and Mann-Whitney U post hoc tests assessed differences in organizational conflict across affiliations. Open-ended questions were analyzed inductively.
RESULTS: We obtained a 14.47% (434 of 3000) response rate. National Collegiate Athletic Association DI ATs disagreed less than NCAA DII and DIII and NJCAA ATs that they would worry about job security if turnover in the head coaching position occurred (P < .05). Regarding the influence of coaches on job performance, differences were found between NCAA DI and DIII and between DI and NJCAA ATs (P < .01). Visibility of the injury and situational factors influenced the level of perceived pressure.
CONCLUSIONS: Athletic trainers perceived pressure from coaches regarding medical decision making. Division I ATs placed greater emphasis on the role that coaches played in their job performance and job security. Athletic departments should consider transitioning to patient-centered models of care to better align values and reduce the external pressures placed on ATs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  interpersonal conflict; organizational structure

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31986099      PMCID: PMC7093929          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-84-19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  9 in total

1.  Survey Research in Athletic Training: The Scientific Method of Development and Implementation.

Authors:  Paula Sammarone Turocy
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  The need for accountability and transparency in intercollegiate athletic medicine.

Authors:  Gary B Wilkerson; Brian W Hainline; Marisa A Colston; Craig R Denegar
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 3.  Inter-association consensus statement on best practices for sports medicine management for secondary schools and colleges.

Authors:  Ron Courson; Michael Goldenberg; Kevin G Adams; Scott A Anderson; Bob Colgate; Larry Cooper; Lori Dewald; R T Floyd; Douglas B Gregory; Peter A Indelicato; David Klossner; Rick O'Leary; Tracy Ray; Tim Selgo; Charlie Thompson; Gary Turbak
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Organizational Infrastructure in the Collegiate Athletic Training Setting, Part III: Benefits of and Barriers in the Medical and Academic Models.

Authors:  Christianne M Eason; Stephanie M Mazerolle; Ashley Goodman
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Organizational Infrastructure in the Collegiate Athletic Training Setting, Part II: Benefits of and Barriers in the Athletics Model.

Authors:  Ashley Goodman; Stephanie M Mazerolle; Christianne M Eason
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Organizational Infrastructure in the Collegiate Athletic Training Setting, Part I: Quality-of-Life Comparisons and Commonalities Among the Models.

Authors:  Stephanie M Mazerolle; Christianne M Eason; Ashley Goodman
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Pressure on Sports Medicine Clinicians to Prematurely Return Collegiate Athletes to Play After Concussion.

Authors:  Emily Kroshus; Christine M Baugh; Daniel H Daneshvar; Julie M Stamm; R Mark Laursen; S Bryn Austin
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Experiences with workplace bullying among athletic trainers in the collegiate setting.

Authors:  Celest Weuve; William A Pitney; Malissa Martin; Stephanie M Mazerolle
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Perceptions of workplace bullying among athletic trainers in the collegiate setting.

Authors:  Celest Weuve; William A Pitney; Malissa Martin; Stephanie M Mazerolle
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.860

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Challenges Faced by Collegiate Athletic Trainers, Part II: Treating Concussed Student-Athletes.

Authors:  Thomas G Bowman; Stephanie Mazerolle Singe; Alicia M Pike Lacy; Johna K Register-Mihalik
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Collegiate Athletic Trainers' Experiences With External Pressures Faced During Decision Making.

Authors:  Alicia M Pike Lacy; Stephanie Mazerolle Singe; Thomas G Bowman
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 2.860

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.