Context Transgender student-athletes are increasingly participating in sport, requiring athletic trainer (AT) preparedness to care for their needs. Objective To measure ATs' (1) perceived definition of transgender, (2) comfort and competence working with transgender student-athletes, (3) sources of education, (4) perceived legal concerns, and (5) perception of competitive advantage. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Mixed-methods survey. Patients or Other Participants Collegiate or university ATs (n = 5537) received an email invitation to participate; the data of 667 ATs were included in the analysis. Main Outcome Measure(s) A multipart 43-item questionnaire addressing the primary objectives of the study, with other factors that were explored in relation to these objectives to uncover potential influences on their responses. We calculated descriptive statistics, and for open-ended responses, we used the consensual qualitative research tradition. Results About half (48.1%, n = 321) of the participants agreed they were competent in treating transgender patients, but only 36.0% (n = 240) believed they were competent in practicing collaboratively with an endocrinologist in the drug-screening processes. Fewer than half (45.6%, n = 304) of participants felt they were competent in using appropriate terminology relating to transgender patients. The ATs disagreed when asked if they were competent regarding counseling transgender patients about the effects of hormone replacement therapy on sport participation (48.1%, n = 321) or on mental health concerns (40.3%, n = 269). Participants learned most frequently from media outlets (35.2%, n = 235) or personal experiences with family, friends, or themselves (33.7%, n = 225), yet 35.1% (n = 243) received no education in caring for transgender patients. Many ATs (41.2%, n = 278) believed that transgender female student-athletes had a competitive advantage. In contrast, 6.6% (n = 44) of participants indicated that transgender male student-athletes had a competitive advantage. Conclusions Although collegiate ATs generally felt competent in treating transgender patients, they did not feel capable of addressing specific aspects of transgender patients' health care needs. Regardless of the resulting perceived unfair advantage, ATs must be aware of the regulations and therapeutic effects associated with hormone-related therapy for transgender student-athletes.

Context Research suggests that patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) are at risk for certain conditions and denied equal access to health care in physician offices compared with their heterosexual counterparts. However, little evidence exists regarding the treatment of LGBTQ student-athlete patients in the athletic training clinic and the role the athletic trainer (AT) plays in these health care experiences. Objective To explore the perceptions of ATs treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants A total of 1077 collegiate and university ATs completed the survey (5685 e-mails distributed, 1214 surveys started, access rate = 21.4%, completion rate = 88.7%). Main Outcome Measure(s) Demographic information and level of agreement in 3 areas (approach, quality of care, and comfort) were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale. We asked ATs their likeliness of providing guidance to student-athletes about navigating their sexuality generally and as it related to athletic participation, if they thought they provided equal health care to a student-athlete who identified as LGBTQ, how comfortable they were treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients, and how comfortable they thought student-athlete patients would be seeking care from them or from providers in their clinic. Results Overall, we found differences among groups for sexual orientation, gender, religion, and the existence of interpersonal contact with LGBTQ friends or family for approach, quality of care, and comfort. We also identified 2 main themes indicating ATs' desire for more training and education, specifically in caring for transgender student-athletes and providing patient-centered care with professionalism, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Conclusions Although differences existed among demographic groups, ATs had a generally positive view of treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients and wanted more training and education on the specific needs of this population.

Context Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) athletic trainers (ATs) face uncertain acceptance in the workplace. Objective To examine the perceptions of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes toward ATs who identified as LGBTQ. Design Cross-sectional design. Setting Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants A total of 623 (males = 212, females = 403, other = 8; age = 19.7 ± 1.4 years) NCAA student-athletes completed the survey. Main Outcome Measure(s) Participants completed a 19-item survey to assess their perceptions about the appropriateness of, quality of care from, and comfort with ATs who identified as LGBTQ. We asked 10 demographic questions and 2 questions regarding the student-athlete's exposure to individuals who identified as LGBTQ. Five matrix questions had 5 stems each to represent LGBTQ individuals on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and 2 open-ended questions elicited qualitative data. We analyzed characteristics of central tendency to evaluate the level of appropriateness, quality of care, and level of comfort perceived by student-athletes of ATs who identified as LGBTQ. We used Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests for post hoc analyses where appropriate. We used grounded theory to identify themes in the answers to the open-ended questions. Results Participants indicated they would seek health care and would feel comfortable approaching an AT who identified as LGBTQ. Participants agreed it was appropriate for an LGBTQ AT to work with both male and female sports and did not agree that health care provided by heterosexual and LGBTQ ATs differed. The open-ended responses revealed 4 themes: professionalism, upbringing, situational concerns, and concerns about specific populations that affected their perceptions. Conclusions In general, the NCAA student-athletes had positive perceptions of ATs who identified as LGBTQ.

Reference/Citation: Harmon KG, Zigman M, Drezner JA. The effectiveness of screening history, physical exam, and ECG to detect potentially lethal cardiac disorders in athletes: a systematic review/meta-analysis. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(3):329-338.Clinical Question: Which screening method should be considered best practice to detect potentially lethal cardiac disorders during the preparticipation physical examination (PE) of athletes?Data Sources: The authors completed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and SPORTDiscus from January 1996 to November 2014. The following key words were used individually and in combination: ECG, athlete, screening, pre-participation, history, and physical. A manual review of reference lists and key journals was performed to identify additional studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this review.Study Selection: Studies selected for this analysis involved (1) outcomes of cardiovascular screening in athletes using the history, PE, and electrocardiogram (ECG); (2) history questions and PE based on the American Heart Association recommendations and guidelines; and (3) ECGs interpreted following modern standards. The exclusion criteria were (1) articles not in English, (2) conference abstracts, and (3) clinical commentary articles. Study quality was assessed on a 7-point scale for risk of bias; a score of 7 indicated the highest quality. Articles with potential bias were excluded.Data Extraction: Data included number and sex of participants, number of true-and false-positives and negatives, type of ECG criteria used, number of cardiac abnormalities, and specific cardiac conditions. The sensitivity, specificity, falsepositive rate, and positive predictive value of each screening tool were calculated and summarized using a bivariate randomeffects meta-analysis model.Main Results: Fifteen articles reporting on 47 137 athletes were fully reviewed. The overall quality of the 15 articles ranged from 5 to 7 on the 7-item assessment scale (ie, participant selection criteria, representative sample, prospective data with at least 1 positive finding, modern ECG criteria used for screening, cardiovascular screening history and PE per American Heart Association guidelines, individual test outcomes reported, and abnormal screening findings evaluated by appropriate diagnostic testing). The athletes (66% males and 34% females) were ethnically and racially diverse, were from several countries, and ranged in age from 5 to 39 years. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening methods were, respectively, ECG, 94% and 93%; history, 20% and 94%; and PE, 9% and 97%. The overall false-positive rate for ECG (6%) was less than that for history (8%) or PE (10%). The positive likelihood ratios of each screening method were 14.8 for ECG, 3.22 for history, and 2.93 for PE. The negative likelihood ratios were 0.055 for ECG, 0.85 for history, and 0.93 f...