↓ Skip to main content

Perspectives and Practices of Athletic Trainers and Team Physicians Implementing the 2010 NCAA Sickle Cell Trait Screening Policy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Perspectives and Practices of Athletic Trainers and Team Physicians Implementing the 2010 NCAA Sickle Cell Trait Screening Policy
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10897-017-0107-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Anne McDonald, Melissa S. Creary, Jill Powell, Lori‐Ann Daley, Charlotte Baker, Charmaine DM Royal

Abstract

Sickle cell trait (SCT) is usually benign. However, there are some conditions that may lead to SCT-related problems and put athletes with the trait at particular risk. In 2010 the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) issued a policy that required all Division I (DI) student-athletes to confirm their SCT status or sign a liability waiver to opt out of testing. Athletic trainers and team physicians play key roles in the policy implementation and we examined their perceptions and practices. Between December 2013 and March 2014 we interviewed 13 head athletic trainers and team physicians at NCAA Division I colleges and universities in North Carolina. We used an interview guide with open-ended questions covering knowledge of SCT, historical screening and education practices, current implementation, and policy benefits and challenges. Participants were knowledgeable about SCT and thought the policy was beneficial in providing SCT health information to and for student-athletes. Schools varied in provision of genetic counseling, offering the waiver, SCT tests administered, and other aspects. Challenges included: insufficient guidance from the NCAA; financial considerations; and misunderstanding of the relationships of race and ancestry to SCT risk. Athletic staff found the policy valuable, but felt it needs clarity and standardization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 21 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Sports and Recreations 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 22 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,798,660
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#428
of 1,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,876
of 317,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.