Search

American football is associated with the largest number of emergency department visits for pediatric sport-related traumatic brain injury, including concussions. Tackling is responsible for almost two-thirds of football concussions. Some have recommended implementing age restrictions on tackling in youth football. To determine whether the public would support age restrictions and the factors that may drive such support. Cross-sectional study. Summer wave of Porter Novelli's 2020 US ConsumerStyles survey. A total of 4053 adults. Respondents answered questions about a good age for children to start playing tackle football, past football playing history, concerns about safety, and the benefits and risks of playing football. Most respondents believed that middle (32.8%) or high (27.8%) school was a good age to start playing tackle football. About 1 in 5 (19.8%) respondents reported that children should never play tackle football. Certain groups of individuals were more likely to support children starting to play tackle football at high school age or above or to say that they should never play tackle football, including those with a bachelor's degree or higher (rate ratio [RR]HS+ = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.14, 1.76; RRNEVER = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.93, 3.78), those who did not have children under 18 (RRHS+ = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.26, 1.90; RRNEVER = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.14, 2.07), those who were not football fans (RRNEVER = 3.07, 95% CI = 2.32, 4.06), and those who were very (RRHS+ = 3.94, 95% CI = 2.87, 5.42; RRNEVER = 11.52, 95% CI = 7.32, 18.15) or somewhat (RRHS+ = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.41, 2.52) concerned about the safety of children. Despite acknowledging the benefits of playing football, many adults expressed concern about safety and endorsed high school age and older or never as a good age to start playing tackle football, highlighting a disconnect with current football program practices regarding age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flag football is promoted as a safer alternative to tackle football. This may be 1 reason why participation rates have risen by 39% over the past 3 years. Despite rising participation, epidemiologic research on sport-specific injuries and associated relative risk is lacking. To prospectively document the epidemiology of injuries in youth flag football. Descriptive epidemiology study. Regional and national youth flag football tournaments. Athletes (N = 1939; 1744 boys and 195 girls), ages 6 to 12 years. An athletic trainer prospectively monitored the athletes for sport-related injury and exposures. Athlete risks of injury and injury rates were calculated overall and by sex. Injury characteristics were reported for the total population and by sex. Forty-seven injuries to unique individuals were recorded in 1939 athletes with a total of 9228 athlete-exposures (AEs). The overall risk of injury was 2.4% (95% CI = 1.79%, 3.21%), with an overall injury rate of 5.1 per 1000 AEs (95% CI = 3.75, 6.77). Of the 47 injuries, 36 occurred in boys (8365 AEs), and 11 occurred in girls (863 AEs). A higher risk in girls was evidenced by both the injury risk ratio (2.73; 95% CI = 1.41, 5.30) and injury rate ratio of 2.96 (95% CI = 1.51, 5.82). The most common injury sites were the head/face/neck (n = 15, 31.9%), followed by the ankle/foot (n = 9, 19.1%). The most frequent types of injury were contusion (55.3%), sprain/subluxation (14.9%), and general trauma (10.6%); 74.5% of all injuries resulted from direct impact. Although the competition injury rate for youth flag football was lower than the values from studies reporting comparable tackle football data, the frequencies by body part, type, and mechanism were similar. Given that most injuries were related to some form of impact and predominantly contusions, adopting minimal protective equipment or padding may reduce the numbers of these injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Whereas researchers have provided estimates for the number of head impacts sustained within a youth football season, less is known about the number of plays across which such impact exposure occurs. Objective: To estimate the number of plays in which youth football players participated during the 2013 season and to estimate injury incidence through play-based injury rates. Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Setting: Youth football. Patients or Other Participants: Youth football players (N = 2098; age range, 5-15 years) from 105 teams in 12 recreational leagues across 6 states. Main Outcome Measure(s): We calculated the average number of athlete-plays per season and per game using independent-samples t tests to compare age groups (5-10 years old versus 11-15 years old) and squad sizes (,20 versus <20 players); game injury rates per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs) and per 10 000 athlete-plays; and injury rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare age groups. Results: On average, youth football players participated in 333.9 6 178.5 plays per season and 43.9 6 24.0 plays per game. Age groups (5- to 10-year-olds versus 11- to 15-yearolds) did not differ in the average number of plays per season (335.8 versus 332.3, respectively; t2086.4 = 0.45, P = .65) or per game (44.1 versus 43.7, respectively; t2092.3 = 0.38, P = .71). However, players from smaller teams participated in more plays per season (373.7 versus 308.0; t1611.4 = 8.15, P < .001) and per game (47.7 versus 41.4; t1523.5 = 5.67, P < .001). Older players had a greater game injury rate than younger players when injury rates were calculated per 1000 AEs (23.03 versus 17.86/1000 AEs; IRR=1.29; 95% CI=1.04, 1.60) or per 10 000 athlete-plays (5.30 versus 4.18/10 000 athlete-plays; IRR=1.27; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.57). Conclusions: A larger squad size was associated with a lower average number of plays per season and per game. Increasing youth football squad sizes may help reduce headimpact exposure for individual players. The AE-based injury rates yielded effect estimates similar to those of play-based injury rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Variations in knee-sprain incidence among competition levels are unclear but may help inform prevention strategies in American football players. Objective: To describe the epidemiology of knee sprains in youth, high school, and collegiate football players. Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Setting: Injury and athlete-exposure (AE) data were collected from 3 injury-surveillance programs at the youth, high school, and collegiate competition levels. Patients or Other Participants: Data from 310 youth, 184 high school, and 71 collegiate football team-seasons were collected during the 2012 through 2014 seasons. Main Outcome Measure(s): Knee-sprain rates and risks were calculated for each competition level. Injury rate ratios (IRRs) and risk ratios (RRs) compared knee-sprain rates by competition level. Injury proportion ratios (IPRs) compared differences in surgery needs, recurrence, injury mechanism, and injury activity by competition level. Results: Knee-sprain rates in youth, high school, and collegiate football were 0.16/1000 AEs, 0.25/1000 AEs, and 0.69/1000 AEs, respectively. Knee-sprain rates increased as the competition level increased (high school versus youth: IRR = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.12, 2.30; collegiate versus high school: IRR = 2.73; 95% CI = 2.38, 3.96). Knee-sprain risk was highest in collegiate (4.3%), followed by high school (2.0%) and youth (0.5%) athletes. Knee-sprain risk increased as the competition level increased (high school versus youth: RR = 3.73; 95% CI = 2.60, 5.34; collegiate versus high school: RR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.83, 2.51). Collegiate football had the lowest proportion of knee sprains that were noncontact injuries (collegiate versus youth: IPR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.95; collegiate versus high school: IPR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.44, 0.79) and the lowest proportion that occurred while being tackled (collegiate versus youth: IPR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.26, 0.76; collegiate versus high school: IPR =0.71; 95% CI=0.51, 0.98). Conclusions: Knee-sprain incidence was highest in collegiate football. However, level-specific variations in the distributions of knee sprains by injury activity may highlight the need to develop level-specific policies and prevention strategies that ensure safe sports play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]