Athletes' and Coaches' Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear as Concussion and Head Injury Prevention: A Scoping Review

The purpose of this article is to map existing research literature on athletes and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport in relation to concussion and head injury prevention, and to identify and analyse knowledge gaps in the field. A scoping review was conducted in three databases; PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, and reference lists were searched to identify relevant grey literature. This process lead to an in-depth analysis of 18 peer-reviewed journal articles. Of the 18 studies identified, the majority focused on athletes (n = 14), only two studies focused on coaches, and two studies included a sample of both athletes and coaches. The findings in this scoping review suggests that there is a discrepancy between attitudes and beliefs about the protective effects of headgear, athletes' behaviour as far as wearing protective headgear, and coaches' behaviour in terms of recommending use of protective headgear to their athletes. The majority of athletes in most of the reviewed literature believed that headgear had protective effects against concussion and other head injuries, however relatively few athletes report wearing this protective headgear unless it was mandatory by competition rules.

Introduction

Concussion is a commonly reported injury among adult and youth athletes around the globe. Consequently, sport related concussion has become an issue of concern in both contact and non-contact sports at the elite and recreational level (Scher et al., 2017; Malcolm, 2019; Ventresca and McDonald, 2020). Clinically, concussion is known to affect an athlete's memory, reaction time (Covassin et al., 2008) and balance (McCrea et al., 2003). A previous concussion may also mean athletes being prone to subsequent concussions (Covassin et al., 2008; King et al., 2014), which could result in mild cognitive impairment (Guskiewicz et al., 2005), depression (Guskiewicz et al., 2007) or chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) (McKee et al., 2009).

Due to the clinical effects of concussion and the risk of head trauma in many sports, more concerns have been raised in the last decade about sport-related concussion. There has also been an increase in the amount of research, media coverage, educational and policy interventions addressing the phenomenon (Sarmiento et al., 2017). In particular, a substantial body of biomedical research on sport-related concussion has been conducted in different sports, such as horse racing (Mattacola et al., 2017), ice hockey (Tegner and Lorentzon, 1996), rugby (Gardner et al., 2015), combat sports (Follmer et al., 2020), volleyball (Meeuwisse et al., 2017), and football (Leung et al., 2017).

Biomedical and social scientific studies of sport-related concussion include explorations of protective measures, such as programmes to educate coaches and athletes about the symptoms, rule changes in sport to minimise the risk of impacts to the head and the use of protective equipment like headguards and mouthguards. Some studies suggest that headguards, helmets and mouthguards may offer some protection against concussion and other head injuries (King et al., 2014; O'Sullivan and Fife, 2016; Tjønndal et al., 2021). Mouthguards are the most controversial in terms of protecting against injuries other than orodental ones (McCrory, 2001; Tiryaki et al., 2017). Research also indicates that athletes' use of protective headgear varies greatly in different sporting contexts (Lehl, 2005).

Sarmiento et al. (2017) argue that attitudes strongly influence behaviour when it comes to athletes' use of protective headgear and other preventive measures. In their study, the authors explored concussion education and knowledge in American youth and high school sports. In our article we focus on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear as concussion and head injury prevention in sport. To our knowledge, no scoping reviews have examined this topic with an international lens. The purpose of this scoping review is therefore to: (1) summarise and map the existing research literature on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport, (2) identify and analyse knowledge gaps in the field and (3) propose an agenda for future research based on the reviewed literature.

Materials and Methods

According to Munn et al. (2018), scoping reviews often act a precursor to systematic reviews. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the available knowledge in a particular field, examine how research is conducted on a certain topic and identify and analyse knowledge gaps. As scoping reviews do not aim to synthesise knowledge in order to answer a specific research question, but rather provide an overview of a research field and map the “state of the art” in that field, they do not usually include methodological processes such as an assessment of methodological limitations or risk of bias (in medical studies) (Peters et al., 2015). In other words, scoping reviews are appropriate when the body of literature is relatively new and the goal is to map the current findings, identify knowledge gaps and investigate how research is conducted on a specific topic (Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2020).

In this article we use a scoping review methodology to gain an overview of the current research on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward headgear as a protective measure to minimise the risk of concussion and other head injuries in sport. In the following, we present our search strategy, the procedure of the review and our analysis of the identified literature.

Data Sources and Search Strategy

Three electronic databases - PubMed, Scopus and SportDiscus - were searched to identify the relevant studies for review. These databases were selected because they collectively provide insights into biomedical, behavioural and social science research on head injuries and the use of protective headgear in sport. The following four searches were conducted in all three databases: (1) “sport” AND “helmet” OR “headguard” OR “headgear” AND “perceptions” OR “attitudes,” (2) “headgear” AND “athlete” OR “coach” AND “attitudes,” (3) “concussion” AND “knowledge” AND “athlete,” (4) “concussion” AND “knowledge” AND “coach.” The search was conducted in February 2021 with no limitation on publication dates in order to yield all possible articles on the subject. Additionally, searches of grey literature were performed to identify other studies published in English that may not have been identified through the database searches. The grey literature search included an examination of the reference list material in the identified studies. Table 1 identifies the specific search strategies used for each database, search engine and number of hits.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Search strategies and initial number of hits.

All the identified research literature describing the attitudes toward protective headgear in sport, concussion knowledge, the use of protective headgear in sport and the perceived risk of concussion and head injuries in athletes and/or coaches at all levels was included in the preliminary analyses. A number of inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to check the eligibility of titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The inclusion criteria stipulated that the studies included in the review should:

1) be reported in peer-reviewed journals and published in English.

2) be original empirical studies.

3) include a sample and population of interest consisting of athletes and/or coaches.

4) focus on attitudes toward protective headgear and concussion/head injury prevention.

The rationale for these criteria was a need to identify international academic publications on attitudes toward headguards to prevent head injuries in sport.

Procedure of the Scoping Review

The studies for final review were identified in three steps. First, preliminary searches for titles, abstracts and keywords were undertaken to identify articles that fitted the inclusion criteria. Second, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. At this stage, several articles were removed from the review due to duplication with a previously identified article across the three databases or only describing concussion knowledge/behaviour/attitudes. Thirdly, questions about the inclusion and exclusion of articles were discussed and resolved collectively by the two authors.

In the first step, 1,331 articles were identified in the initial searches of the databases (see Table 1). The screening of the initial number of hits in the three databases revealed that many of the identified articles did not match the purpose of our literature review or fulfil the inclusion criteria. As illustrated in Table 1, we identified a large number of hits on the topic of concussion knowledge among athletes and coaches, although only a few of these studies took attitudes toward headgear into consideration. After reviewing the initial hits according to the inclusion criteria, 843 studies were excluded, leaving us with 488 relevant studies (see Table 2).

TABLE 2

Table 2. Studies identified as relevant to the initial inclusion criteria in the three databases before removing duplicates.

After removing the duplicates (n = 1,139), we were left with 192 studies in which the abstract met the initial inclusion criteria of attitudes toward or knowledge about head injuries/concussion or protective headgear amongst coaches or athletes. Eleven articles were further identified as relevant in the grey literature searches after examining the reference list material in the identified studies, thus leaving us with a total of 203 studies.

In the second step of assessing the full-texts for eligibility, we identified 185 studies that examined concussion knowledge but did not include attitudes toward protective headgear amongst parents, athletes, coaches, health personnel, teachers or other stakeholders. These were excluded from our review as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies were then considered according to method and study populations. A further two studies were excluded in this step because the sample did not include coaches or athletes, thereby leaving us with 18 studies for the final review. The procedure of the scoping review is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Flow chart of the scoping review process.

Results

The preliminary literature searches revealed a substantial body of research on concussion knowledge amongst athletes and/or coaches, with 203 identified studies in the procedure of the scoping review. When limiting the search to studies exploring knowledge about or attitudes toward protective headgear in relation to concussion or other head injuries, the number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was limited to 18 (see Table 3).

TABLE 3

Table 3. Results of the scoping review.

Of the 18 articles that were included in the final review: three focused on knowledge about and awareness of the risk of injuries to the head and injury prevention strategies (Lehl, 2005; Inness and Morgan, 2015; Jeffries et al., 2020), five examined perceptions of the risk of head injury and attitudes toward the use of protective headgear (Kahanov et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2005; Provance et al., 2012; Tiryaki et al., 2017; Vriend et al., 2018), seven studies only examined athletes' attitudes toward using protective headgear in sport (Finch et al., 2001, 2003; Pettersen, 2002; Braham et al., 2004; Ruedl et al., 2012a,b; Pratt et al., 2019), two examined athletes' experiences of the obstacles to wearing protective headgear in training and competitions (Ross et al., 2010; Dean and Bundon, 2020) and one only examined the use of protective headgear in one single season (Braham and Finch, 2004). Finally, four studies did not include any measurement of the athletes' use of protective headgear, but the remaining 14 of the 18 studies did.

The reviewed studies examined a wide range of sports, including polo (n = 1), roughstock rodeo (n = 1), downhill skiing (n = 4), rugby (n = 2), surfing (n = 2), basketball (n = 1), Australian football (n = 5), different recreational sports including hockey, basketball, volleyball, cricket, football and martial arts (n = 1) and mountain biking (n = 1). Fourteen of the studies focused on athletes, two on coaches (Lehl, 2005; Jeffries et al., 2020) and two included a sample of athletes and coaches (Pettersen, 2002; Tiryaki et al., 2017). The study populations varied in age from 6 years (Provance et al., 2012) to 65 years (Pratt et al., 2019).

Athletes' Use of and Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear in Sport

Several studies reported on athletes' use of protective headgear (headgear behaviour). The reported use of protective headgear varied greatly from ~2% of the sample in Taylor et al.'s (2005) study of surfers and Braham et al.'s (2004) study of community football, to 80–90% of the sample in Finch et al.'s (2003) rugby study and Provance et al.'s (2012) study of skiing and snowboarding. Some of the variations relating to the use of headgear could be due to differences in the competition rules of different sports, especially if wearing a helmet or protective headgear is compulsory, optional or in some cases (as in men's boxing) forbidden. The ongoing debate about whether protective headgear should be compulsory in rugby (Frizzell et al., 2018) and skiing/snowboarding (Alsop et al., 2013), or the studies showing a reduced risk of head injuries when skiers and snowboarders (Russell et al., 2010; Haider et al., 2012) or rugby players (Frizzell et al., 2018) wear helmets, could also explain this variation. However, when it comes to athletes' attitudes toward wearing protective headgear, the variation in perceptions is considerably smaller. In studies reporting on athletes' attitudes in percentages, we identified a variation between 62% (Pettersen, 2002) and 87.7% (Provance et al., 2012) in the athletes included in the samples who believed that wearing headgear protected against concussion and head injuries (see Table 4).

TABLE 4

Table 4. Summary of studies reporting on athlete/coach attitudes and behaviour in percentages.

Most of the studies examining attitudes toward headgear identified a mismatch in attitudes, risk perception and the use of headgear (Pettersen, 2002; Taylor et al., 2005; Ruedl et al., 2012a,b). This meant that in many cases athletes believed that wearing headgear had a protective effect in terms of reducing the number and/or severity of concussions, head injuries and/or orofacial injuries, but that athletes still chose not to wear headgear either because they felt uncomfortable wearing it (Finch et al., 2001; Pettersen, 2002; Braham et al., 2004; Dean and Bundon, 2020) or that the risk of concussion did not apply to them (Taylor et al., 2005). For instance, in Pettersen's (2002) study of Canadian rugby players, 62% believed that wearing headgear could prevent concussion. Despite the players' belief that headgear offered protection against concussion, only a minority reported wearing it (27%) and a few (24%) felt that its use should be compulsory.

A notable exception to this mismatch between attitudes and use of headgear is found in Provance et al. (2012), who examined recreational skiers between 6 and 17 years of age. In this study selection, almost all those wearing a helmet (87.7%) reported that they did it for safety reasons and to prevent head injuries (Provance et al., 2012).

Athletes' use of protective headgear was also associated with an earlier experience of injury or perception of risk (Finch et al., 2003; Kahanov et al., 2005; Inness and Morgan, 2015; Tiryaki et al., 2017; Pratt et al., 2019). Here, athletes who perceived the risk of concussion in their sport as low to moderate wore protective headgear less often (Finch et al., 2003; Taylor et al., 2005). The most frequently mentioned barriers to wearing protective headgear were: “its use is not mandatory” (Pettersen, 2002; Ross et al., 2010), “it is uncomfortable” (Pettersen, 2002; Braham et al., 2004, Finch et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2005; Provance et al., 2012; Ruedl et al., 2012a; Dean and Bundon, 2020), “it hinders performance” (Taylor et al., 2005; Dean and Bundon, 2020), “it costs too much” (Pettersen, 2002) and that it affects looks/image (Ross et al., 2010; Inness and Morgan, 2015; Dean and Bundon, 2020). The most common reasons for not using a mouthguard were discomfort and difficulty in breathing or talking (Tiryaki et al., 2017).

Some of the studies indicate that athlete demographics such as age, gender and skill-levels could influence athletes' attitudes and subsequent use of protective headgear (Kahanov et al., 2005; Ruedl et al., 2012a; Vriend et al., 2018), meaning that older and more skilled athletes were more unlikely to wear protective headgear than less skilled and younger athletes. Ruedl, Kopp, Rumpold, Holzner, Ledochowski and Burtscher (2012b) findings also indicate that male athletes are less likely to wear a helmet and more likely to engage in risky behaviour during sporting activity than female athletes. The literature on gender differences in risk taking highlights men's increased tendency toward sensation seeking and belief in a positive outcome of the activity compared to women. It also highlights that men and women have different perceptions of the severity of negative outcomes in their risk taking behaviour (Slovic et al., 2004; Harris and Jenkins, 2006). While these findings are valuable and interesting, more research is needed on these aspects, and in particular on how factors other than risk-taking behaviour and gender influence the use of protective headgear.

Coaches' Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear in Sport

Only a few of the studies examined coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport (see Table 4). In these studies the use of protective equipment among athletes was not associated with coaches' risk perceptions. In their studies, Tiryaki et al. (2017) and Jeffries et al. (2020) identified a disconnection between coaches' risk perceptions and the implementation of concussion-prevention strategies, such as promoting the use of protective headgear in training and competitions. For instance, Jeffries et al. (2020) found that 70% of collegiate women's soccer athletic coaches believed that cervical strengthening programmes would help to prevent concussion, but that only 17% of the coaches included in the sample used such programmes in their training regimes. Jeffries et al. (2020) reported that only 8.76% of the coaches believed that headgear prevented concussion, while 20.74% believed that mouthguards prevented concussion among football (soccer) players. Similarly, only 33% of coaches in Pettersen's (2002) study of Canadian rugby players believed that wearing headgear could prevent concussion. The low percentages reported in Jeffries et al. (2020) and Pettersen (2002) could be due to the phrasing used in the study designs, as there is a notable difference between believing that headgear or mouthguards can prevent concussion and that this type of protective equipment can provide some level of protection against concussion and other head injuries.

Tiryaki et al. (2017) surveyed 53 coaches and 351 players (aged 12–38 years) to examine the prevalence of dental injuries and awareness of mouthguards as protective equipment in basketball. Tiryaki et al. (2017) found that although 98% of the coaches believed that mouthguards could prevent dental injuries, only 47% suggested their use to their players and only 6.3% of the surveyed athletes reported using them.

In other words, similar to the athletes, the coaches in the reviewed literature believed that wearing headgear and mouthguards had a protective effect in reducing the number and/or severity of concussions and other head injuries, but that many did not advise their athletes to use this type of protective equipment in training and competitions (Taylor et al., 2005; Tiryaki et al., 2017; Jeffries et al., 2020).

Discussion

The findings in this scoping review suggest that there is a discrepancy between attitudes toward and beliefs about the protective effect of headguards and mouthguards, athletes' behaviour when it comes to wearing protective headgear and coaches' behaviour in terms of recommending the use of protective headgear to their athletes (Tiryaki et al., 2017). Although the majority of athletes in most of the reviewed literature believed that headguards and/or mouthguards could protect them against concussion and other head injuries, relatively few of them reported wearing protective headgear unless it was compulsory.

In the following, our discussion of the results of our review is structured in accordance with the guidance for scoping reviews suggested by Munn et al. (2018). Therefore, we first of all focus on the methodology applied in current research (how research on the field is conducted) and secondly on the identified research gaps in the field.

How Is Research on Athletes' and Coaches' Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear Conducted?

Current research on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear as concussion prevention is mainly conducted using quantitative methods. One of the studies in the review employed quantitative observation (Braham and Finch, 2004), while 14 studies used quantitative questionnaires to collect their empirical data (Ross et al., 2010; Tiryaki et al., 2017; Jeffries et al., 2020). Two of the studies in the review were prospective single cohort studies (Vriend et al., 2018; Pratt et al., 2019). Only one of the studies was based on a qualitative research design (Dean and Bundon, 2020). In terms of methods and analytical approaches, the quantitative articles mainly consist of descriptive statistics and correlational analyses (Finch et al., 2001, 2003; Pettersen, 2002; Braham et al., 2004; Kahanov et al., 2005; Lehl, 2005; Taylor et al., 2005; Ross et al., 2010; Provance et al., 2012; Tiryaki et al., 2017; Jeffries et al., 2020). Some of the quantitative studies employed more rigorous statistical analyses, such as regression analysis (Ruedl et al., 2012b). One qualitative study (Dean and Bundon, 2020) included participant observation and interviews with 12 experienced surfers from Canada to better understand their attitudes toward the use of protective headgear.

The reviewed literature suggests that the current research on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear is conducted on team sports and individual sports in equal measure. Nine studies were conducted with samples consisting of athletes and coaches from team sports, eight with samples of athletes/coaches from individual sports and one included a sample of coaches from both team and individual sports (Lehl, 2005).

An important finding from the reviewed literature is that most of the identified studies of athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear are conducted in countries situated in the global north. This means that samples of athletes and coaches from Europe (Inness and Morgan, 2015; Vriend et al., 2018), Australia (Braham et al., 2004; Kahanov et al., 2005), New Zealand (Pratt et al., 2019), and North America (Dean and Bundon, 2020; Jeffries et al., 2020) appear to be over-represented in this research field.

Research on Athletes' and Coaches' Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear: Identified Knowledge Gaps

There are limitations and gaps in the reviewed literature that can be addressed in future studies to improve the knowledge about athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport. A common limitation in the current research is indirect evidence obtained through self-reporting surveys with relatively small non-representative samples from a variety of team and individual sports. Also, most of the reviewed literature focuses exclusively on athletes (both male and female). Of the 18 reviewed studies, only two focus solely on coaches (Lehl, 2005; Jeffries et al., 2020), and only two include athletes and coaches in their sample (Pettersen, 2002; Tiryaki et al., 2017). Based on the findings of this scoping review, future research is needed that engages with athletes as well as coaches and that focuses specifically on coaches' attitudes and behaviour regarding the use of protective headgear in sport. Concretely, research examining issues and questions such as coaches' perceptions of headgear-usage and head injury, or coaches' attitudes and supportive actions toward athletes' actual use of protective headgear, will expand the existing research literature. Lastly, there is a need for future research that takes sport-specific competition rules into account and how they inform coaches' attitudes and behaviour on the use of protective headgear in everyday training situations.

No longitudinal research designs were identified in this review, which is a significant weakness in this research field. Methodologically, the research field is predominately quantitative, although many of the quantitative studies employ relatively weak statistical measures (correlation and descriptive statistics). In future, quantitative studies should aim for a robust regression analysis approach and multilevel analyses. While the methods and statistical measures employed are first and foremost guided by the research question and focus of the study, statistical measures including regression analyses and multilevel analyses explore causations rather than correlations. Therefore, future research is needed that includes these statistical measures, in addition to descriptive statistics.

There was only one qualitative study in the reviewed literature (Dean and Bundon, 2020). More qualitative studies would be useful to the field and provide novel insights into context-specific information about athletes' motivations for wearing (or not wearing) headgear, as well as the psychological and motivational mechanisms behind the use of protective headgear. Hence, there is a need for future research that explores the thoughts and experiences of athletes and coaches in-depth by means of extensive qualitative interviews.

Many of the studies in the reviewed literature include athletes in a variety of different age groups. For instance, the survey of Pratt et al. (2019) included athletes aged between 18 and 65 in the sample, and the study of Ross et al. (2010) included athletes between 18 and 36. This indicates a need for more age-specific research that targets athletes and coaches in different age groups. As Sarmiento et al. (2017) argue, perceptions of health and safety, the importance of sports competition and the influence of coaches may vary significantly between adult-, youth- and child athletes. Some of the studies in this review support this, as findings indicate that younger athletes are more likely to wear protective headgear than older ones (Provance et al., 2012; Ruedl et al., 2012b). Furthermore, none of the studies in the reviewed literature examined variations in attitudes and behaviour in terms of sociocultural factors, such as ethnicity/ethnic background, gender, rural/urban residence or socioeconomic status.

The low number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria (n = 18) suggests that despite the increase in knowledge and awareness of head injuries like concussion in athletes and coaches in a wide range of sports (King et al., 2014; Follmer et al., 2020; Tjønndal et al., 2021), there is a need for more knowledge about athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear, their wearing of it (athletes) and recommending (or requiring) it (coaches).

In terms of attitudes toward protective headgear, many athletes claim that they would use protective headgear to a greater extent “if it protected them against head injury” (Finch et al., 2003, p. 506). This underlines the need for more accurate knowledge about the function of protective headgear in sport, especially in the light of the conflicting results on the impact of headgear wearers vs. non-wearers (Broglio et al., 2003; Withnall et al., 2005; Mcintosh et al., 2009; Rodowicz et al., 2015; Baron et al., 2020; Tjønndal et al., 2021). As updated knowledge shows a reduction in head injuries when wearing protective headgear (Broglio et al., 2003; Rodowicz et al., 2015; Baron et al., 2020), educational programmes directed toward athletes and coaches may be beneficial in terms of increasing the use of headgear in sport.

Reflections

Our scoping review identified a small number of studies that met our inclusion criteria on attitudes toward protective headgear and concussion prevention in sport. This small number reflects that this is a field in need of future research, as outlined in our results and discussion. Most of the reviewed literature focused on athletes' attitudes toward protective headgear as a protective measure against concussion and head injury. Only a handful of articles specifically addressed coaches' attitudes and behaviour. While our review attempts to summarise international research on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport, we are limited by our language skills. As we have only searched for literature in English, we may have excluded relevant knowledge from other parts of the world. This might also explain the over-representation of samples from the global north in the reviewed literature.

A limitation of scoping reviews is that they generally do not appraise the quality of evidence included in the review (Munn et al., 2018). Future efforts should explore the feasibility of conducting a systematic review as a next step in understanding attitudes and behaviour about concussion and head injuries among athletes and coaches.

Conclusion

The purpose of this scoping review was to summarise and analyse the current research on athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sports. The analysis of the reviewed literature in this scoping review suggests that there is a discrepancy between athletes' and coaches' attitudes toward protective headgear in sport and their behaviour. Based on the analyses of the reviewed literature, this article identifies some of the knowledge gaps in the field and future directions for research.

As Tjønndal et al. (2021) have noted, the debate about protective headgear in sport is often too simplistic and reduced to a question of “to wear or not to wear.” None of the studies in the reviewed literature distinguished between the different types of headgear (beyond headguard/helmet and mouthguard). Additionally, many athletes in the reviewed literature reported that discomfort and image (“looking bad”) were main reasons for not wearing protective headgear. There is a need for multidisciplinary research looking into the design and development of innovative new designs for protective headgear that might lower the barriers experienced by athletes, and thus increasing the chance of more athletes choosing to wear protective headgear regularly. More research examining athletes and coaches' attitudes and behavioural outcomes is also needed to improve the culture of concussion in sport. Such research should incorporate diverse qualitative and quantitative study designs, include athletes and coaches in their samples and include groups from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Alsop, J., Burlatschenko, S., Gouveia, S., and Gowdy, K. (2013). Should helmets be mandatory for skiers and snowboarders in Ontario? Environ. Health Rev. 56, 49–53. doi: 10.5864/d2013-016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baron, S. L., Kingery, M. T., Nguyen, M. V., Alaia, M. J., and Cardone, D. A. (2020). Decreased injury rate following mandated headgear use in women's lacrosse. Bull. NYU Hosp. Joint Dis. 78, 260–265.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Braham, R. A., and Finch, C. F. (2004). Do community football players wear allocated protective equipment? Descriptive results from a randomised controlled trial. J. Sci. Med. Sport 7, 216–220. doi: 10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80011-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Braham, R. A., Finch, C. F., McIntosh, A., and McCrory, P. (2004). Community football players' attitudes towards protective equipment–a pre-season measure. Br. J. Sports Med. 38, 426–430. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2002.004051

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Broglio, S. P., Ju, Y. Y., Broglio, M. D., and Sell, T. C. (2003). The efficacy of soccer headgear. J. Athlet. Train. 38:220.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Covassin, T., Stearne, D., and Elbin, R. (2008). Concussion history and postconcussive neurocognitive performance and symptoms in collegiate athletes. J. Athl. Train. 43, 119–24. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.119

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dean, N. A., and Bundon, A. (2020). “Helmets aren't cool”: Surfers' perceptions and attitudes towards protective headgear. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport. doi: 10.1177/1012690220931736

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Finch, C. F., McIntosh, A.S., and McCrory, P. (2001). What do under 15 year old schoolboy rugby union players think about protective headgear? Br. J. Sports Med. 35, 89–94. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.35.2.89

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Finch, C. F., McIntosh, A. S., McCrory, P., and Zazryn, T. (2003). A pilot study of the attitudes of Australian Rules footballers towards protective headgear. J. Sci. Med. Sport 6, 505–11. doi: 10.1016/S1440-2440(03)80275-X

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Follmer, B., Varga, A. A., and Zehr, P. E. (2020). Understanding concussion knowledge and behavior among mixed martial arts, boxing, kickboxing, and Muay Thai athletes and coaches. Phys. Sports Med. 48, 417–423. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2020.1729668

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Frizzell, E. R., Arnold, G. P., Wang, W., Abboud, R. J., and Drew, T. S. (2018). Comparison of branded rugby headguards on their effectiveness in reducing impact on the head. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 4:e000361. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000361

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gardner, A., Iverson, G. L., Levi, C. R., Schofield, P. W., Kay-Lambkin, F., Kohler, R. M., et al. (2015). A systematic review of concussion in rugby league. Br. J. Sports Med. 49, 495–498. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093102

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guskiewicz, K. M., Marshall, S. W., Bailes, J., McCrea, M., Cantu, R. C., Randolph, C., et al. (2005). Association between recurrent concussion and late-life cognitive impairment in retired professional football players. Neurosurgery 57, 719–26. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000175725.75780.DD

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guskiewicz, K. M., Marshall, S. W., Bailes, J., McCrea, M., Harding, H. P., Matthews, A., et al. (2007). Recurrent concussion and risk of depression in retired professional football players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 39, 903–9. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3180383da5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haider, A. H., Saleem, T., Bilaniuk, J. W., and Barraco, R. D. (2012). An evidence based review: efficacy of safety helmets in reduction of head injuries in recreational skiers and snowboarders. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 73:1340. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318270bbca

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harris, C. R., and Jenkins, M. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judg. Decis. Making 1, 48–63. Available online at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04381-005

Google Scholar

Inness, C. M., and Morgan, K. L. (2015). Falls and injuries to Polo players: risk perception, mitigation and risk factors. Sports Med. Open 1:2. doi: 10.1007/s40798-014-0002-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jeffries, K. K., Girouard, T. J., Tandy, R. D., and Radzak, K. N. (2020). Concussion-prevention strategies used in National Collegiate Athletic Association Divisions I and II Women's Soccer. J. Athl. Train. 55, 469–474. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-142-19

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kahanov, L., Dusa, M. J., Wilkinson, S., and Roberts, J. (2005). Self-reported headgear use and concussions among collegiate men's rugby union players. Res. Sports Med. 13, 77–89. doi: 10.1080/15438620590956025

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

King, D. A., Brughelli, M., Hume, P., and Gissane, C. (2014). Assessment, management and knowledge of sport-related concussion: a systematic review. Sports Med. 44, 449–471. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0134-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lehl, G. (2005). Perceptions of Chandigarh sports coaches regarding oro-facial injuries and their prevention. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 23, 67–70. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.16444

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leung, F., Hides, J. A., Smith, M. M. F., Mendis, D. M., Smith, N. A., Cooper, A. J., et al. (2017). Spinal control is related to concussion in professional footballers. Br. J. Sports Med. 51, A10–A11. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097270.25

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Malcolm, D. (2019). The Concussion Crisis in Sport. Routledge.

Google Scholar

Mattacola, C. G., Han, D. D. Y., Crots, J., Glueck, A., Abt, J., and Heebner, N. (2017). Concussion characteristics in horse racing. Br. J. Sports Med. 51:A62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097270.160

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCrea, M., Guskiewicz, K. M., Marshall, S. W., Barr, W., Randolph, C., Cantu, R. C., et al. (2003). Acute effects and recovery time following concussion in collegiate football players: the NCAA Concussion Study. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 290, 2556–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.19.2556

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCrory, P. (2001). Do mouthguards prevent concussion? Br. J. Sports Med. 35, 81-82. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.35.2.81

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mcintosh, A., McCrory, P., Finch, C., Best, J., Chalmers, D., and Wolfe, R. (2009). Does padded headgear prevent head injury in rugby union football? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41:306. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181864bee

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McKee, A. C., Cantu, R. C., Nowinski, C. J., Hedley-Whyte, E. T., Gavett, B. E., and Budson, A. E. (2009). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 68, 709–735. doi: 10.1097/NEN.0b013e3181a9d503

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meeuwisse, D. W., MacDonald, K., Meeuwisse, W. H., and Schneider, K. (2017). Concussion incidence and mechanism among youth volleyball players. Br. J. Sports Med. 51, A62–A63. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097270.162

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., and Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18:143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

O'Sullivan, D. N., and Fife, G. P. (2016). Impact attenuation of protective boxing and taekwondo headgear. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 16, 1219–1225. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1161073

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., and Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 13, 141–146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peters, M. D., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., et al. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 18, 2119–2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pettersen, J. A. (2002). Does rugby headgear prevent concussion? Attitudes of Canadian players and coaches. Br. J. Sports Med. 36, 19–22. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.36.1.19

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pratt, C. F., Primrose, H. A., and Fulcher, M. (2019). Factors influencing protective equipment use by mountain bikers: implications for injury prevention. N. Z. Med. J. 132, 25–39.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Provance, A. J., Engelman, G. H., and Carry, P. M. (2012). Implications of parental influence on child/adolescent helmet use in snow sports. Clin. J. Sport Med. 22, 240-243. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3182410335

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodowicz, K. A., Olberding, J. E., and Rau, A. C. (2015). Head injury potential and the effectiveness of headgear in women's lacrosse. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43, 949–957. doi: 10.1007/s10439-014-1154-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ross, D. S., Ferguson, A., Bosha, P., and Cassas, K. (2010). Factors that prevent roughstock rodeo athletes from wearing protective equipment. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 9, 342–6. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181fc7357

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruedl, G., Abart, M., Ledochowski, L., Burtscher, M., and Kopp, M. (2012b). Self reported risk taking and risk compensation in skiers and snowboarders are associated with sensation seeking. Acc Anal. Prev. 48, 292–296. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.031

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruedl, G., Kopp, M., Rumpold, G., Holzner, B., Ledochowski, L., and Burtscher, M. (2012a). Attitudes regarding ski helmet use among helmet wearers and non-wearers. Inj. Prev. 18, 182–6. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040042

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Russell, K., Christie, J., and Hagel, B. E. (2010). The effect of helmets on the risk of head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders: a meta-analysis. Cmaj 182, 333–340. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091080

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarmiento, K., Donnell, Z., and Hoffman, R. (2017). A scoping review to address the culture of concussion in youth and high school sports. J. School Health 87, 790–804. doi: 10.1111/josh.12552

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scher, I. S., Greenwald, R. M., and Petrone, N. (2017). Snow Sports Trauma and Safety. SpringerOpen.

Google Scholar

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. Int. J. 24, 311–322. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

Taylor, D. M., Bennett, D., Carter, M., Garewal, D., and Finch, C. (2005). Perceptions of surfboard riders regarding the need for protective headgear. Wilderness Environ. Med. 16, 75–80. doi: 10.1580/1080-6032(2005)16[75:POSRRT]2.0.CO;2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tegner, Y., and Lorentzon, R. (1996). Concussion among Swedish elite ice hockey players. Br. J. Sports Med. 30, 251–255. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.30.3.251

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tiryaki, M., Saygi, G., Yildiz, S. O., Yildirim, Z., Erdemir, U., and Yucel, T. (2017). Prevalence of dental injuries and awareness regarding mouthguards among basketball players and coaches. J Sports Med. Phys. Fitn. 57, 1541–1547. doi: 10.23736/s0022-4707.17.06790-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tjønndal, A., Haudenhuyse, R., de Geus, B, and Buyse, L. (2021). Concussions, cuts and cracked bones: a systematic literature review on protective headgear and head injury prevention in Olympic boxing. Eur. J. Sport Sci. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2021.1872711

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ventresca, M., and McDonald, M. G. (2020). Sociocultural Examinations of Sports Concussions. Routledge.

Google Scholar

Vriend, I., Hesselink, A., Kemler, E., Gouttebarge, V., van Mechelen, W., and Verhagen, E. (2018). Effectiveness of a nationwide intervention to increase helmet use in Dutch skiers and snowboarders: an observational cohort study. Inj. Prev. 24, 205–212. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042179

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Withnall, C., Shewchenko, N., Wonnacott, M., and Dvorak, J. (2005). Effectiveness of headgear in football. Br. J. Sports Med. 39(Suppl. 1), i40–i48. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.019174

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar