Key result
NCAA SCT screening policy draws broad support, with higher knowledge linked to valuing universal implementation.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to describe methods for evaluating the implementation of the NCAA policy on sickle cell trait screening and to assess attitudes toward the screening.
What are the attitudes and perspectives of collegiate athletic staff and athletes regarding the implementation of the NCAA sickle cell trait screening policy?
What are the attitudes and perspectives of collegiate athletic staff and athletes regarding the implementation of the NCAA sickle cell trait screening policy?
While there is broad support for the NCAA sickle cell trait screening policy among athletic staff and athletes, perspectives on specific implementation strategies vary significantly by division, race, and knowledge level.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports SCT education to align implementation views; leaves open optimal policy focus pending prospective data.
Introduction: This paper describes methods for a national study evaluating the implementation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) policy on sickle cell trait (SCT) screening of athletes and describes attitudes toward the screening. Methods: In Fall 2020, 343 Division I schools, 302 Division II schools, and 426 Division III schools were invited to participate in this national survey. Results: Across 123 participating schools, a total of 168 sport medicine administrators (121 head athletic trainers and 47 team physicians), 268 athletic staff (128 staff athletic trainers and 140 coaches), and 1424 athletes from basketball, football, soccer, lacrosse, track and field completed the survey. While the vast majority of respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the screening policy, there was varying support for how the policy was implemented including: prioritizing SCT screening versus screening for other conditions (40-50% agreed/strongly agreed), focusing on sports with higher risk of overexertion versus universal screening (50-75% agreed/strongly agreed), and focusing on racial and ethnic groups where SCT is more prevalent (25-40% agreed/strongly agreed). Perspectives varied by NCAA division and race. Higher SCT knowledge scores were associated with believing that screening all athletes for SCT is important. Conclusions: Discussion of these findings provides important context for assessing how genetic screening requirements are implemented within collegiate athletics and more broadly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kucera et al. (2026) studied this question. Majority support NCAA SCT screening policy, but only 40-75% agree on implementation focus; higher SCT knowledge linked to valuing universal screening.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: