Baseline evaluation reveals psychological distress in collegiate athletes, highlighting that concussion assessment tools can identify individuals needing mental health care.
Purpose Examine the prevalence of mental health difficulties in university student-athletes during baseline concussion assessment. Method Two hundred and forty-three university athletes (male = 163, female = 80) completed the. Sideline Concussion Assessment Tool, 3rd Edition (SCAT3) Symptom Evaluation scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) self-report questionnaire at baseline evaluation across two consecutive seasons. The BSI-18 measured psychological distress using 5-point rating scales to calculate three emotional scales (Somatization, Depression, Anxiety) and one total scale (Global Severity Index). The four psychological symptoms from the SCAT3 Symptom Evaluation scale (more emotional, irritability, sadness, and nervous or anxious) were selected to calculate a total psychological symptom score out of 24. Existing normative data informed the SCAT3 symptom severity, including classifications of mild (1–2), moderate (3–4), and severe (5–6). Results Descriptive statistics indicated that 7.5% of athletes reported depressive symptoms and. 9.5% reported anxious symptoms on the BSI-18. The SCAT3 psychological symptoms score showed that 6.5% of athletes were within the mild range. Significant correlations existed between the SCAT3 total psychological symptom score and the BSI’s Anxiety, Depression, Somatization, and Global Severity Index scales (p < 0.01). Conclusions A small but significant number of collegiate athletes reported experiencing psychological symptoms during baseline concussion evaluation. These results indicate that the psychological symptoms of the SCAT’s Symptom Evaluation scale may help identify players with more significant mental health concerns who will likely benefit from mental health support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ree-Fedun et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: