ArticleJournal of athletic training2024
Head Impact Exposure in Hawaiian High School Football: Influence of Adherence Rates on a Helmetless Tackling and Blocking Training Intervention.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neck Strength Is Not a Protective Factor for Lower Repetitive Head Impact Exposure in Law Enforcement Cadets.Military medicine · 2025Observational
- Hawaiian High School Football Player Positional Differences in Helmet Impact Characteristics.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextHigh school football remains a popular, physically demanding sport despite the known risks for acute brain and neck injury. Impacts to the head also raise concerns about their cumulative effects and long-term health consequences.
objectiveTo examine the effectiveness of a helmetless tackling training program to reduce head impact exposure in football participants.
designA three-year, quasi-experimental, prospective cohort (clinicaltrials.gov #NCTXXX) study.
settingHonolulu (XXX, XXX) area public and private secondary schools with varsity and junior varsity football. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsFootball participants (n=496) ages 14 to 18 years old. Intervention(s) Participants wore new football helmets furnished with head impact sensor technology. Teams employed a season-long helmetless tackling and blocking intervention in Years 2 and 3 consisting of a 3-phase, systematic progression of 10 instructional drills. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Head impact frequency per athlete exposure (ImpAE), location, and impact magnitude per participant intervention adherence levels (60% and 80%).
resultsAn overall regression analysis revealed a significant negative association between ImpAE and adherence (p=0.003, beta=-1.21, SE=0.41). In year 3, a longitudinal data analysis of weekly ImpAE data resulted in an overall difference between the adherent and non-adherent groups (p=0.040 at 80%; p=0.004 at 60%), mainly due to decreases in top and side impacts. Mean cumulative impact burden for the adherent group (n=131: 2,105.84g ± 219.76,) was significantly (p=0.020) less than the non-adherent group (n=90: 3,158.25g ± 434.80) at the 60% adherence level.
conclusionsParticipants adhering to the intervention on at least a 60% level experienced a 34% to 37% significant reduction in the number of head impacts (per exposure) through the season. These results provide additional evidence that a helmetless tackling and blocking training intervention (utilizing the HuTT® program) reduces head impact exposure in high school football players. Adherence to an intervention is crucial for achieving intended outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.