On the Need to Move Toward an Evidence-Based Athletic Training (EBAT)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is now a well-known paradigm for the athletic training (AT) profession. The Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education accredited programs have required EBP as an explicit focus for professional education, and researchers are gradually producing insightful and relevant evidence concerning the education and implementation of clinically based EBP in educational programs. Likewise, many clinicians are attempting to incorporate EBP into their daily practice in order to guide and enhance patient care, and the Board of Certification has mandated regular EBP education in order to maintain national certification status. Although there remains much work to be completed before AT can claim to be a health care profession that is saturated with EBP, there is growing evidence of positive momentum toward that goal. However, the extent of EBP implementation remains limited to clinically based, patient-oriented outcomes. To date, there is little suggestion that the profession of AT has used an evidence-based approach for other related aspects of its professional practice. To that point, a multifactorial and more comprehensive model for evidence-based AT (EBAT) is presented with the intent of better situating and centering the potentiality for a larger evidence-based culture to inform and guide the AT profession's 3 critical subcomponents practice, regulation, and education. We attempt here to expand upon the paradigm for EBP as a precondition for an overarching, more inclusive EBAT model. To do this, we will introduce and interconnect 2 other critical aspects of professional practice: evidence-based regulation and evidence-based education. Alongside EBP, both evidence-based regulation and education are fundamentally interrelated and vital components of an effective, comprehensive, and progressive evidence-based profession of AT, or EBAT.

Reply: Letter to the Editor

“…In light of our central thesis in the evidencebased athletic training manuscript, given the considerable level of ''unknowingness'' associated with IPE outcomes and their effect on IPCP and knowing that IPE implementation is widely reported to be costly in curricular, clinical, human, and financial resources, we continue to feel that stronger and more contextually relevant evidence concerning IPE should first be secured, assessed, and consulted before we put regulations into place for all academic programs (the evidence-based regulation component of evidence-based athletic training). 1 Our commentary on IPE also brings to the table questions concerning exactly what is needed in our profession as it regards this issue. We wonder too ''what is missing'' or ''where is the void'' when it comes to athletic training's place in and within interprofessional collaboration or practice?…”

“…We thank Dr David Berry, the Editor-in-Chief of the Athletic Training Education Journal for providing us the opportunity to respond to the editorial penned by Breitbach et al 1,2 concerning 2 manuscripts we authored in volume 12, issue 2, of this journal. For clarity and simplicity, the Geisler et al paper 1 will be referred to as the evidence-based athletic training (EBAT) paper, whereas the McKeon et al paper 2 will be indicated as the knowledge paper.…”

“…We thank Dr David Berry, the Editor-in-Chief of the Athletic Training Education Journal for providing us the opportunity to respond to the editorial penned by Breitbach et al 1,2 concerning 2 manuscripts we authored in volume 12, issue 2, of this journal. For clarity and simplicity, the Geisler et al paper 1 will be referred to as the evidence-based athletic training (EBAT) paper, whereas the McKeon et al paper 2 will be indicated as the knowledge paper. As the opening editorial 3 in that issue noted, the purpose of the journal's first special issue was to hear more voices and to spark greater insights from the professional body in hopes of initiating critical conversations concerning various professional and educational issues in the new master's transition era.…”

“…Although new literature is emerging daily, there remains a paucity of compelling and long-lasting evidence in athletic training and many other health care fields attempting to define their IPE so that IPCP is indeed enhanced and patient outcomes optimized. 1 As Breitbach et al pointed out in their response, objective evidence concerning the effectiveness of IPE and IPCP from athletic training specific settings or contexts is lacking. Overall, IPE and IPCP may be beneficial for health care professions, but perhaps we need to focus on defining our profession more completely before we seek to be interprofessional as defined by the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine.…”

“I Wanna Go to AT School” (Said No One, Ever)

“…6 Further, we must continue to generate, disseminate, and be guided by relevant evidence regarding best practices in all of our interconnected domains of professional practice (clinical, regulatory, and educational) to better legitimize our professional condition and position in the health care world. 7 Doing so requires ongoing, authentic, and collaborative communication; energy and creativity; and the will to negotiate and challenge the status quo in the name of progressive professional change. 8,9 Lastly, athletic training educationalists must cultivate and leverage greater academic governance over both our individual and collective futures.…”