Many college students struggle with food insecurity due to limited income and competing financial interests for tuition and housing. Students in health care professions may be at an even higher risk of food insecurity; for instance, researchers have indicated that over 50% of nursing students experience food insecurity. However, little is known about the frequency and attributing factors to food insecurity in professional athletic training students. To investigate the frequency and attributing factors of food insecurity experienced by professional athletic training students. Cross-sectional study. One hundred sixteen participants completed the survey (11.6% completion rate). Twenty-four were males, and 92 were females. Participants received an e-mail with a link to the online survey by the National Athletic Trainers’ Association Research Survey Services. Participants completed the US Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form to identify food insecurity frequency, along with demographic questions and questions about dietary habits, academic demands, and mental health to identify factors that may contribute to food insecurity. We used a series of χ2 tests to determine if any significant group differences existed between food security groups and the personal and demographic questions. One hundred sixteen participants completed the survey; 35.3% reported having high or marginal food security, 37.1% reported low food security, and 27.6% reported very low food security. We found that participants with high to marginal food security were more likely to live with family or a spouse. Over 60% of professional athletic training students reported low to very low food security. Professional athletic training programs should be aware of this risk and create policies to help ease the challenges to food security among their students.
With the shift to a graduate-level professional degree in athletic training, it was hypothesized that immersive clinical experiences (ICEs) would be more effectively integrated into curricula than non-ICEs (N-ICEs) and better prepare students for practice. To longitudinally compare clinical engagement opportunities in ICEs versus N-ICEs and assess if these opportunities are associated with changes in student confidence in performing related tasks. Prospective, longitudinal, time-diary study using a Web-based survey. Fifty-three first-year, master’s-level athletic training students from 21 programs. Participants reported their type of clinical experience (ICE, N-ICE, or none), the setting, and hours spent at clinical each day. They quantified the percentage of time spent on 8 categories of athletic training and patient care tasks and rated their confidence in performing these tasks. Independent samples t tests (P < .05) were used to compare confidence ratings and time spent on activities across all students, and the analysis was repeated within students who participated in both ICEs and N-ICEs. Most clinical experiences occurred in traditional athletic training settings. Immersive clinical experiences led to more time spent on administrative tasks, waiting, and therapeutic interventions, while N-ICEs involved more time in practice coverage, skills practice, diagnostic labs or tests, and applying protective devices. Within students, N-ICEs showed more time on skills practice, but other outcomes were not significant. Immersive clinical experiences resulted in higher confidence in integrating business practices and communicating with health providers and administrators. Immersive clinical experiences may offer more engagement opportunities and increase confidence in specific tasks, while engagement opportunities are influenced more by the student than the type of clinical experience. Both ICEs and N-ICEs have valuable roles in clinical education; each providing different types of engagement opportunities.
Patient-centered care (PCC) has been widely studied in health care. Often, PCC is considered a mindset; however, there are specific behaviors to address in PCC, such as medical interviewing, exploring a patient’s health literacy, and providing patient education. Much of the data specific to PCC relate to patient satisfaction rather than exploring provider behaviors. To assess the extent to which athletic trainers (ATs) create a patient-centered environment using a standardized case vignette and behavior checklist. Qualitative procedures with quantitative analysis. Individual, audio-only interview. Twenty-seven ATs (age = 34 ± 10 years; women = 15, men = 12; clinical experience = 10 ± 9 years) from the physician practice (n = 10), college (n = 9), or secondary school (n = 8) setting. Participants completed a 1-on-1 interview guided by a case vignette. In their verbal response, the participants were asked to share how they would approach care for the patient specific to their job setting, focusing on practical, real-world responses. Two researchers who reviewed each transcript independently scored the responses using the Assessment of Patient-Centered Care Checklist. The trustworthiness of the coding was ensured by using a multianalyst review of the data and an external audit. ATs reported several positive behaviors yet lacked an overall PCC approach, with an average score of 26.6% on the tool. No significant differences were identified for ATs based on job setting, years of experience, or highest degree earned. Our case vignette design allowed participants to share their approach to PCC through a common orthopedic patient scenario. The data gathered suggested that ATs are aware of the skills and strategies that PCC can use in clinical practice, yet they have the opportunity for improvement. Our data suggest that the lack of behaviors was not job, experience, or education specific, demonstrating the need for profession-wide training and feedback on PCC.
The Athletic Training Education Journal (ATEJ) was established in 2006. Editor-in-Chief Kenneth Knight implored us to "nurture it and guide its growth."1(p1) Looking back to that first issue in January 2006, we have seen the ATEJ provide a platform for scholars and educators to publish their research, innovative ideas, and best practices in education. The journal has had steadfast leadership in the Editor-in-Chief role, starting with Ken Knight and followed by William Pitney, Kimberly Peer, and David Berry. Educators at heart, they brought their individual passions and visions to the journal that have allowed it to flourish over the last 18 years. We would be remiss in failing to thank them for guiding the journal and advocating for its value in our profession.As the journal prepares to move forward and embark on a journey of change, it is important to acknowledge the ATEJ's roots, struggles, and growth.With the intention to provide an outlet for topics that advance educational practices for the student, preceptor, and educator, the ATEJ was born. In 2006, the mission of the journal wasThe mission has changed slightly over time, but the ATEJ has continued to solicit "high-quality scholarly works that will address and advance the continuum of teaching and learning from educational preparation to professional development and continuing education."Since 2006, the journal has published 406 papers, which were reviewed by more than 330 athletic training educators, scholars, and practitioners. These papers include original research, literature reviews, educational techniques, and commentaries. In publishing these papers, the ATEJ has most definitely accomplished the goals established by Ken Knight to advance the field of athletic training pertaining to teaching, curriculum design, and development and maintain a rigorous review process and by Kim Peer to demonstrate a commitment to excellence through teamwork (section editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and editorial staff), scholarly intrigue, and lifelong learning.2 As a part of this commitment, educational programming through the Athletic Training Education Conference and workshops facilitated training and encouraged involvement of scholars at all levels of their careers.Bill Pitney eloquently stated, "we [the journal] cannot operate effectively without good personnel."3 As we look to the future, the journal will continue to rely on the leadership team and editorial staff to, in Ken Knight's words, "nurture and guide its growth."1(p.1)Despite the success of the ATEJ, we have recently experienced challenges, including delays in publication, difficulty finding reviewers, and fewer submissions. As Dave Berry shared, time to publication was a challenge with a quarterly journal, often resulting in a 3- to 6-month publication process for accepted articles.4 A move to continuous publication has speeded up the process, offering benefits to both authors and readers; this, however, does not mean that challenges do not exist with publication delays.A fair amount of pressure is placed on the peer reviewer community, as they help maintain and uphold the journal's rigor as well as help maintain the flow of publications for the journal. Reviewers are a limited resource, and although we are not alone with struggles to find individuals to complete the peer review process, we have certainly been guilty of overusing the pool of reviewers, which has often contributed to those publication delays mentioned above.5Despite publishing over 400 papers, in the last few years, a marked decline in the number of submissions has occurred (Figure). Many of the authors who submitted to the journal have secured tenure, reducing the need and frequency to publish in ATEJ, but also the journal is not yet indexed, thus limiting its ability to have an impact factor, and for many early career faculty, impact factors influence where authors may choose to submit their work.Growth comes with the need for reflection and, of course, change. The journal leadership is embarking on the revamp of the ATEJ in the form of a name change and an expansion of the journal's scope. In June 2025, the journal will become known as the Journal of Athletic Training Education and Practice (JAT-EP). The National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) Prioritized Research Agenda for the Athletic Training Profession identified the research priorities for the athletic training profession, many of which directly align with our new mission:When I accepted the position of Editor-in-Chief, I committed to moving the journal forward with a central focus on obtaining indexing in scholarly databases. As mentioned previously, the journal has faced a decline in submissions, likely in part due to the lack of impact factor. By expanding the scope of the journal, we can capture content often submitted to the Journal of Athletic Training but rejected or referred to other non-NATA journals, or athletic training–focused ones.In addition, I pledged to provide a platform for new and young scholars and reviewers while also improving the diversity and breadth of knowledge being disseminated in the journal. By expanding the range of journal topics that align with the NATA's Prioritized Research Agenda, I believe that the revamp will allow us to achieve these additional identified goals. I am excited for the future of the journal and hope that you embrace the change as a sign of the collective evolution of the Journal of Athletic Training and the newly coined JAT-EP.As we begin this new chapter, I welcome your comments and suggestions (stephanie.m.singe@uconn.edu).
Context The transition to practice process is complex and facilitated by many formal and informal processes. The coronavirus disease 2019 global pandemic presented unique challenges for athletic trainers. An identity-specific focus is necessary to understand better the transition to practice process during the pandemic. Objective To understand (1) what socializing factors influence a cohort of women athletic trainers who graduated from the same professional master’s (PM) athletic training program as they transitioned to practice and (2) the unique challenges the women athletic trainers faced as they sought employment and transitioned into their first professional roles during the pandemic. Design Qualitative phenomenological cohort study. Setting Semistructured, in-depth, 1-on-1 videoconference interviews. Patients or other Participants Six women (24.83 ± .96 years old) who graduated from the same PM athletic training program now working in various athletic training settings. Data Collection and Analysis We conducted semistructured interviews via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications). Interviews were transcribed, and a general phenomenological approach to analysis was used. Member checks, multiple analyst triangulation, and peer review were used to ensure trustworthiness. Results Three main themes emerged that describe the effects of the pandemic on the transition to practice of women athletic trainers: (1) personal identity, (2) relational identity, and (3) professional identity. Several subthemes were also identified to further illustrate the participants’ lived experiences. Conclusions Although some of the participants’ socialization and transition to practice experiences were similar to other graduates described in the literature, the personal, relational, and professional identities of these women athletic trainers were influenced by the pandemic. The participants purposefully sought women mentors to assist them with navigating the challenges of developing a professional identity during the pandemic. There is a need to create gender-specific networks to support individuals during their growth from novice to professional.
